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

mauna-loa-week

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

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

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

Scientific American laments the plants

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

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

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

1what_400_PPM_looks_like

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

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

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

The 400 PPM FUD Factory: T-shirts now available

0 0 votes
Article Rating
292 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Richard Howes
May 10, 2013 10:41 am

Sign me up for a tee!

Pat
May 10, 2013 10:42 am

Not too late for Bill McKibben to lay claim to 450.org and 500.org.

John Tillman
May 10, 2013 10:47 am

Global temperature down; CO2 up.
That’s why the tax-grubbing scaremongers are now called catastrophic anthropomorphic “climate change” alarmists (CACCA) instead of CA “global warming” advocates, which isn’t as catchy.

milodonharlani
May 10, 2013 10:50 am

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

Editor
May 10, 2013 10:50 am

Lawrence Livermore “Fact Sheet” on Co2:

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

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

Peter Miller
May 10, 2013 10:50 am

“And everyone will remember the day when CO2 passed 400ppm.” Yeah, right.
As non-events go, it’s right up there with George Washington’s best friend’s cousin’s birthday.

leon0112
May 10, 2013 10:51 am

I want a tee.

GeeJam
May 10, 2013 10:54 am

400 parts per million . . . . jeez, that’s 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Does this mean that someone will announce that 99.96% of the atmosphere is not CO2?

David
May 10, 2013 10:57 am

Not tomorrow, not next week, not next year. Now
Aren’t you supposed to go from largest to smallest when you use this type of “pleading, wake up people” expression. In other words, “Not next year, not next week, not tomorrow. Now!”. He might as well have stopped with “Not tomorrow” since that also covers next week and next year.
I’m sure lots of people have seen the graphic that shows the earth, and shows all the water on the earth, depicted as a ball. Could we have one like that for CO2?

May 10, 2013 10:59 am

Does anyone actually think Al Gore believes what he says or is he delusional?

Don
May 10, 2013 11:04 am

Definitely need a tee.

Bob Diaz
May 10, 2013 11:06 am

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

May 10, 2013 11:07 am

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

Mike M
May 10, 2013 11:08 am

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

Mike M
May 10, 2013 11:12 am

(Didn’t Anthony promise us an edit button a while back?)
REPLY: No, never. Not possible when hosted on wordpress.com as I have explained many many many times. – Anthony

G P Hanner
May 10, 2013 11:12 am

One more time, folks: Mauna Loa IS an active volcano. Why should carbon dioxide or any other volcanic gas be a surprise in just about any concentration? The wind blows like Billy-O (to use a Brit expression) most days. And Mauna Loa pumps out a lot of volcanic gases.
And just downslop a tad, Kilauea is in quite a stir and has been erupting since January 1983.

MarkN
May 10, 2013 11:13 am

I’d like a tee, please, with said text and a cuddly polar bear graphic.

GeeJam
May 10, 2013 11:14 am

Oh and one other thing. Of the 0.04% of the total atmosphere being CO2 (400 ppm), 96.775% of this total 400 ppm is still naturally occurring. No change. Still the same.
Why does this totally insignificant 3.225% man-made contribution of atmospheric CO2 continue to make Al Gore rant “Action to solve this crisis. Not tomorrow, not next week, not next year. Now.”

jc
May 10, 2013 11:17 am

This people are not just idiots. They are retarded.
It is beyond their capacity to see that trying to generate fear and loathing over a number that is a complete abstraction to virtually everyone on the planet, including “decision makers”, not only will fail, it will consolidate their image as manipulators and cranks.
Quite apart from the fact that Armageddon has already supposedly been triggered by the previously ominous and devastating figure of 350.

Boblo
May 10, 2013 11:20 am

Does the dog need a home?

theOtherJohninCalif
May 10, 2013 11:23 am

We can laugh, but the fact is that this lends support to AGW alarmism. We hear everywhere (and it seems constantly) that 2010 was the hottest year in the last 150 (with implications that it was the hottest EVER). Many of us don’t deny that information, as we are still recovering from the LIA. While a few organizations are looking for the missing heat, they are looking for the upper extremes the models predicted. The theme has not changed: temperatures are still rising with no end in sight, and potentially will hit that ‘tipping point’ soon where it will run away. It’s not just climate change – it is still global warming. The target is city folk, who have no idea what a plant needs to grow, and that jungles are lush because they are hot. (They are also humid, of course, but so is the Pacific Northwest, and it is no jungle.)
It is not just the ignorant, however. I have many friends with advanced scientific degrees and no ties to AGW funding who are convinced that the planet is indeed in a warming spiral. They are quick to point out that if solar activity is declining, and the temperatures are still rising, there is a problem, and thank God the sun is quiet or the models would probably be indicating far less than the actual temperatures.
We do need to maintain skepticism – not only about AGW, but toward some of the posts here. Some of the references don’t seem to support the theme, and followups by the referenced organization frequently state data was taken out of context, or was premature. Those are valid comments.

davidmhoffer
May 10, 2013 11:25 am

Y2K? That seems pretty light. I suppose the younger folks might not relate to all the disasters their elders have survived. If memory serves, I’ve survived (so far)
Impending Ice Age
Ozone Depletion
Acid Rain
Toxic Rain
Y2K
Bird Flu
Swine Flu
Global Economic Collapse (fossil fuel depletion)
Global Starvation (population exceeding food supply)
Impending Warm Age
I wonder if it is a cycle of some sort? Does Impending Warm Age get followed directly by Impending Ice Age? Perhaps the tee shirt should be in a circle with dates for each and ending in an arrow pointing back to the start?

jc
May 10, 2013 11:27 am

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

shepherdfj
May 10, 2013 11:27 am

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

May 10, 2013 11:31 am

With this volcanic activity why does Hawaii bother
with wind generation?
Alfred

Editor
May 10, 2013 11:41 am

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

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

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

mwhite
May 10, 2013 11:41 am
Alex
May 10, 2013 11:45 am

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

Editor
May 10, 2013 11:45 am

shepherdfj says:
May 10, 2013 at 11:27 am

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

Just pick times when the wind isn’t blowing CO2 to the collector. The staff are not dummies.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/under-the-volcano-over-the-volcano/

R. Shearer
May 10, 2013 11:45 am

Plant your garden, knowing CO2 will make its chakra strong.

May 10, 2013 11:47 am

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

Chris4692
May 10, 2013 11:49 am

Has it been studied how representative Mauna Loa is of the CO2 of the atmosphere globally?
Wondering if that is established or just assumed. It would seem to be of some importance to a theory that attaches great significance to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Bruce Cobb
May 10, 2013 11:50 am

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

Lew Skannen
May 10, 2013 11:54 am

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

May 10, 2013 11:54 am

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

Peter B
May 10, 2013 11:57 am

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

May 10, 2013 11:58 am

I think you should sponsor a HUGE cook out – with lots of charcoal (we all bring the meat and beer) to celebrate!
Guess I will be driving 200 miles to get some of them blue crabs this weekend, for my own celebration!

May 10, 2013 12:02 pm

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

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

and
End of the world December 21, 2012

May 10, 2013 12:02 pm

“Levels….will soon drop as spring kicks in across the Northern Hemisphere, trees budding forth an army of leaves hungrily sucking CO2 out of the sky.”
A note to you “Scientific American” nit wits….trees, and humans, are CARBON lifeforms….nature LOVES sucking CO2 out of the sky….monarch-monopolists LOVE sucking wealth from their serfs….and “armies” destroying lives and properties in staged conflicts, is a favorite technique. I reject this elitist front group’s claim to be “Scientific” or “American”.

Rhoda R
May 10, 2013 12:12 pm

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

milodonharlani
May 10, 2013 12:12 pm

theOtherJohninCalif says:
May 10, 2013 at 11:23 am
————————————
Actually the Pacific Northwest west of the Cascades and coast ranges is a jungle, if that means “rain forest”. By a jungle is usually meant a tropical rain forest. The climax state of the western Pacific NW is a temperate rain forest. Without humans, even the floor of the Willamette Valley would be covered with towering, old growth western hemlock trees.

BradProp1
May 10, 2013 12:15 pm

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

Werner Brozek
May 10, 2013 12:15 pm

theOtherJohninCalif says:
May 10, 2013 at 11:23 am
We hear everywhere (and it seems constantly) that 2010 was the hottest year in the last 150
According to both satellite data sets, 1998 was the warmest.
RSS:
1 {1998, 0.549},
2 {2010, 0.475},
3 {2005, 0.33},
4 {2003, 0.321},
UAH:
1. 1998 0.419
2. 2010 0.394
3. 2005 0.260
4. 2002 0.218

James at 48
May 10, 2013 12:25 pm

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

May 10, 2013 12:25 pm

On to 450!

eslguy
May 10, 2013 12:38 pm

I want damvidmhoffer/vukcevic shirt.

DJ
May 10, 2013 12:40 pm

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

John Mason
May 10, 2013 12:45 pm

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

May 10, 2013 12:49 pm

I would like a Tshirt too please.

milodonharlani
May 10, 2013 12:50 pm

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

Bruce Cobb
May 10, 2013 12:50 pm

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

Tom J
May 10, 2013 12:56 pm

I find this statement from Scientific American to be sort of, well, weird:
‘Regardless, the hourly levels at Mauna Loa will soon drop as spring kicks in across the northern hemisphere, trees budding forth an army of leaves hungrily sucking CO2 out of the sky.’
Ok, let us think about this. What kind of army is an army of leaves. Did the leaves enlist, or were they drafted in this war against the enemy CO2? Where did they sign up? Or is ‘an army of leaves’ a rather emotional and not particularly artful description. Hell if I know.
Now, it’s hard for me to imagine leaves ‘hungrily sucking CO2 out of the sky’. So I looked up the definition for the word ‘suck’. Here goes: ‘To draw (liquid) into the mouth by movements of the tongue and lips that create suction.’ Honest, that definition came from the Free Online Dictionary and not from …well, any other source you may think it came from.
Now, try to think about a leaf, let alone an army of them, wrapping its tongue and lips around the sky and sucking it dry of CO2. Try to imagine that. I can’t. I can imagine other things involved with that word but I certainly can’t imagine that. And I tend to doubt, or at least I hope, that someone writing for the Scientific American can’t really imagine it either.

jc
May 10, 2013 12:59 pm

ALGORES effusion is listed at realclearpolitics.com, having appeared in the Huffington Post.
Just under it, as the Feature Article for realclearscience, is “Weird things attributed to Climate Change” apparently written by staff at that operation. It is a list. The first on the list is the impact on kangaroo scrotum size.
ALGORE has competition for public attention. Which will attract more readers? Which will carry more weight?
The absurdity and insanity is going mainstream!

Ian W
May 10, 2013 1:02 pm

Yes a Tee would be good.
Perhaps on the back you could have “Only 400ppm to the next doubling!”

jc
May 10, 2013 1:04 pm

@Tom J says:
May 10, 2013 at 12:56 pm
“And I tend to doubt, or at least I hope, that someone writing for the Scientific American can’t really imagine it either.”
You hope in vain.
What is urgently needed is a team of anthropologists to start documenting these things.

Ivan
May 10, 2013 1:08 pm

Sign me up for the t-shirt. Just wonderful!

Mike jarosz
May 10, 2013 1:08 pm

Crap, got to cut the grass again. Two shirts please, large and extra large

Jimbo
May 10, 2013 1:09 pm

HEAD FOR THE HILLS!!!
http://youtu.be/P2qVNK6zFgE

Resourceguy
May 10, 2013 1:12 pm

Is there a version of the tee that says “I survived 0.04 percent”?

May 10, 2013 1:17 pm

@John Tillman –
I assume you know what CACCA means in Italian – and yes, it’s a good characterization of the “new” catastrophist/doomsayer/Chicken Little meme.
I’ve been in a few REAL greenhouses where the CO2 content was presumably 1000 ppm or better, and didn’t have any problem breathing. So I can’t get too excited about 400 ppm. And I’d willing to bet there’s enough CO2 in the vicinity of Mauna Loa to substantially skew the measurements thereof.
More stupid scare tactics by the Inconvenient Liar and a once-proud periodical that has sunk to the lowest of lows. How eveil on the one hand, how sad on the other

Jimbo
May 10, 2013 1:17 pm

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

Shevva
May 10, 2013 1:18 pm

I’ll just add a line and say that all views are worth understanding before LOLing at the sky is falling narrative.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2013/may/10/carbon-dioxide-milestone-climate-change

Robert L
May 10, 2013 1:19 pm

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

John Blake
May 10, 2013 1:21 pm

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

davidmhoffer
May 10, 2013 1:22 pm

Heh. How about a two sided t-shirt?
CO2 graph on the front, and RSS from 1998 to now on the back.

oeman50
May 10, 2013 1:27 pm

You guys are looking at this wrong way. The atmosphere is actually 99.96% CO2 free! Take that, Algore!
BTW, Anthony, love having the spell check because I am typing challenged.

May 10, 2013 1:28 pm

TheOtherJohninCalifornia,
Relax. The 1930’s were far warmer than the 2000s.
And this chart will help bring you back down to earth.
Nothing unusual or unprecedented is happening. Relax.

Anthony Scalzi
May 10, 2013 1:29 pm

Pat says:
May 10, 2013 at 10:42 am
Not too late for Bill McKibben to lay claim to 450.org and 500.org.
—————–
450.org is already taken.
500.org can be had for the low, low price of $9,500.
http://www.sedo.com/search/details.php4?domain=500.org&language=us&et_sub=164&partnerid=14456&et_cid=13&et_lid=17473&origin=parking

Bruce Cobb
May 10, 2013 1:35 pm

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

Dell from Michigan
May 10, 2013 1:46 pm

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

LKMiller
May 10, 2013 1:48 pm

milodonharlani says:
May 10, 2013 at 12:12 pm
theOtherJohninCalif says:
May 10, 2013 at 11:23 am
————————————
“Actually the Pacific Northwest west of the Cascades and coast ranges is a jungle, if that means “rain forest”. By a jungle is usually meant a tropical rain forest. The climax state of the western Pacific NW is a temperate rain forest. Without humans, even the floor of the Willamette Valley would be covered with towering, old growth western hemlock trees.”
*******************
Ummmm…not exactly. It is far too hot and dry in the Willamette Valley for hemlock. Planted hemlock can grow in the valley, but under natural conditions it would be easily out-competed by Douglas-fir, and heat and drought tolerant herbaceous plants.
LKMiller (aka treegyn1)

Gbees
May 10, 2013 1:49 pm

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

DirkH
May 10, 2013 1:59 pm

milodonharlani says:
May 10, 2013 at 12:50 pm
“The average is estimated to have reached 300 ppm in 1910. It will take a few more years for the average to attain 400. I’ll be concerned if it got back to 1000 ppm, a true greenhouse level. Some people might get headaches after prolonged exposure to that concentration. ”
Some people get headaches all by themselves.
“CO2 levels above 1000 ppm correlate with complaints of minor health problems such as eye and throat irritation, headache and fatigue. Interestingly, it is unlikely that CO2 is causing these problems. More likely, CO2 levels are high due to poor ventilation in the building and other more toxic gases are also building up. CO2 levels above 5000 ppm are considered an occupational hazard and can cause drowsiness and other problems. Very high levels (above 10 per cent) will result in loss of consciousness.”
http://www.ehow.co.uk/info_8091324_normal-co2-levels-offices.html
BTW, a higher CO2 level in your blood promotes oxygen release from hemoglobin and that’s why you let hyperventilating people breathe into a bag to rebreathe their own CO2.

Gbees
May 10, 2013 2:00 pm

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

Tamara
May 10, 2013 2:01 pm

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

Paul Hooks
May 10, 2013 2:01 pm

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

William Astley
May 10, 2013 2:06 pm

Scientific America is following in the footsteps of Business Week. The inside joke was the current mania (dot.com and so on) would crash soon after tBusiness Week ran a special on the mania in question.
It obvious that the warmists are struggling to distract the discussion away from the fact that planetary temperature rise has stopped.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/
As the planet resists forcing changes by an increase or decrease of clouds in the tropics reflecting more or less sunlight off into space, rather than amplifies warming, the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be less than 1C. Plant growth will increase in a response to the higher CO2 levels. Most of the warming will occur at high latitudes where the growing season is limited by the number of frost free days. The biosphere will expand and will be more productive. Sounds like a win-win situation for the biosphere.
This is a link to a review paper that was prepared by EPA’s own scientist that supports the assertion that the research and analysis does not support the extreme AGW paradigm. The EPA buried the report. The EPA and IPCC of course are completely ignoring the data and logic that indicates the majority of the 20th/21st warming was not due to the rise in atmospheric CO2.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/endangermentcommentsv7b1.pdf
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
“ A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.”
http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf
“On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications by Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. …. … CO2, a relatively minor greenhouse gas, has increased significantly since the beginning of the industrial age from about 280 ppmv to about 390 ppmv, presumably due mostly to man’s emissions. This is the focus of current concerns. However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2.

M Courtney
May 10, 2013 2:06 pm

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

Henry Galt
May 10, 2013 2:07 pm

Can we reset the baseline now please. A nice round number would stop beings such as Gore from getting so easily confusified.
“A doubling of CO2 from 0.04% (400ppmv) to 0.08% (800ppmv) may raise global temperatures by @1%C.” AAaaah.
Personally I will still bet that, all other things considered, we will eventually find a CS for a doubling of around about … nearly, approximately, as close as dammit …. 0.0C +/- 0.0001C
8)

M Courtney
May 10, 2013 2:10 pm

DirkH says at May 10, 2013 at 1:59 pm
“BTW, a higher CO2 level in your blood promotes oxygen release from haemoglobin and that’s why you let hyperventilating people breathe into a bag to rebreathe their own CO2.”
Hmm… new scare then.
Exercise is less efficient in a higher CO2 atmosphere therefore, fossil fuels cause the rise in obesity.
And it will prove true, too. When countries get mass car-ownership the obesity levels will rise.

ShrNfr
May 10, 2013 2:15 pm

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

M Courtney
May 10, 2013 2:15 pm

Bruce Cobb says: May 10, 2013 at 12:50 pm
“T-shirt I’d like to see:
400 ppm!
Great for Plants and People.
No discernible effect on climate.
What’s not to love?”
Like that but how about being more accessible?
“T-shirt I’d like to see:
400 ppm!
Great for Plants
Let’s recycle and eat the crops.
No discernible effect on climate.
What’s not to love?”

JamesS
May 10, 2013 2:15 pm

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

Werner Brozek
May 10, 2013 2:19 pm

davidmhoffer says:
May 10, 2013 at 1:22 pm
Heh. How about a two sided t-shirt?
CO2 graph on the front, and RSS from 1998 to now on the back.

They can even be combined on the same side to produce an X. Interpret the X as you please. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.9/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.3/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.3/trend

DirkH
May 10, 2013 2:22 pm

M Courtney says:
May 10, 2013 at 2:10 pm
“Hmm… new scare then.
Exercise is less efficient in a higher CO2 atmosphere therefore, fossil fuels cause the rise in obesity.”
Well, you would probably get away with it in any scientific journal, but it’s not true; your blood is slightly more acidic, this enables hemoglobin to release oxygen faster, and your muscle performance should rise. There are breathing exercises, forgot the name of the guy who promotes them, where you breathe in exclusively through the nose, very deep and long, and release the breath very slowly. I once saw an interview with a guy who was used to breathing in this way, and it was a little irritating, he talked for quite a while, then paused and breathed in through the nose, then talked for a minute again.
And a healthy grown up has simply enormous lung overcapacity. So you won’t really notice the 1000 ppm. The lungs age irreversibly, that’s why we develop the overcapacity in the first place.

AndyG55
May 10, 2013 2:23 pm

700ppm .. upward and onward.. Yee-haw !! :-)))
Let Mother Earth flourish as she once did. !

Auto
May 10, 2013 2:30 pm

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

May 10, 2013 2:33 pm

Considering that CO2 levels were measured at levels close to 500ppm during the years covering WWII and quickly fell back post-war, what does this say about residence panics so often bandied about? As far as I can see, there is little that can really be classed as ‘unprecedented’ if anything.
If you can get an XXL (and a generous XXL at that) I could be tempted to buy a T-Shirt.

pottereaton
May 10, 2013 2:38 pm

Re: “Al Gore calls for a day of prayer and reflection, and bothering your neighbor. . . ”
Calls to mind a line by R. Emmett Tyrrell: “The liberal’s main goal in life is to annoy his neighbor.”

AndyG55
May 10, 2013 2:41 pm

“‘hungrily sucking CO2 out of the sky’”
That’s what you do when you have been on bread and water rations for 200,000+ years. . .
then there becomes nearly enough to have a decent feed. !!
280ppm was biosphere “survival” amount… war rations, so to speak.
400ppm.. the plants are now doing ok, they don’t have to struggle so much to get a decent feed.
700ppm +.. will be a feast ! 🙂

May 10, 2013 2:44 pm

GeeJam said in part on May 10, 2013 at 11:14 am:
> Oh and one other thing. Of the 0.04% of the total atmosphere being
> CO2 (400 ppm), 96.775% of this total 400 ppm is still naturally
> occurring. No change. Still the same.
Since probably sometime in the early 20th century, nature has had
net effect of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. The increase since
then is less than man-made CO2 emissions.
Link to carbon budget figures for 1959-2010:
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/global-carbon-budget-2010

May 10, 2013 2:53 pm

I suggest in addition to the T-shirt start a sideline mail order business
Save the planet !
Order bottled CO2 at 400ppm.
Skeptics are not welcome.

Steve T
May 10, 2013 2:55 pm

vukcevic says:
May 10, 2013 at 12:02 pm
davidmhoffer says:
May 10, 2013 at 11:25 am
Impending Ice Age
Ozone Depletion
Acid Rain
Toxic Rain
Y2K
Bird Flu
Swine Flu
Global Economic Collapse (fossil fuel depletion)
Global Starvation (population exceeding food supply)
Impending Warm Age
and
End of the world December 21, 2012
*************************************************************************************************
Don’t forget ocean acidification! It’s no more insane than all the others.
If I can pay by credit card put me down for a t-shirt (not Paypal).
Steve T

May 10, 2013 3:02 pm

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

May 10, 2013 3:16 pm

milodonharlani said in part, on May 10, 2013 at 12:12 pm
> Actually the Pacific Northwest west of the Cascades and coast ranges
>is a jungle, if that means “rain forest”. By a jungle is usually meant a
>tropical rain forest. The climax state of the western Pacific NW is a
>temperate rain forest. Without humans, even the floor of the Willamette
>Valley would be covered with towering, old growth western hemlock trees.
“Jungle” has another meaning, which appears to me as more accepted
than as a word for rainforest. A major meaning of “jungle” is dense
ground-level human-height vegetation, that impairs human movement
unless it is cut away. Tropical rainforests typically have little of this
jungle except at edges streams, rivers or lakes.

Steve T
May 10, 2013 3:17 pm

DirkH says:
May 10, 2013 at 2:22 pm
M Courtney says:
May 10, 2013 at 2:10 pm
“Hmm… new scare then.
Exercise is less efficient in a higher CO2 atmosphere therefore, fossil fuels cause the rise in obesity.”
Well, you would probably get away with it in any scientific journal, but it’s not true; your blood is slightly more acidic, this enables hemoglobin to release oxygen faster, and your muscle performance should rise. There are breathing exercises, forgot the name of the guy who promotes them, where you breathe in exclusively through the nose, very deep and long, and release the breath very slowly. I once saw an interview with a guy who was used to breathing in this way, and it was a little irritating, he talked for quite a while, then paused and breathed in through the nose, then talked for a minute again.
And a healthy grown up has simply enormous lung overcapacity. So you won’t really notice the 1000 ppm. The lungs age irreversibly, that’s why we develop the overcapacity in the first place.
*******************************************************************************************
I think the name of the guy who developed the method you referred to is Dr. Konstantin Buteyko. (The Buteyko Method). Sadly he died a few years back in his late eighties/early nineties and one day will be far better known.
I can personally vouch for his method for overcoming breathing difficulties, asthma etc. The method is far easier to adopt the younger one is, but it is still a good technique to know even when one is as old as me and struggling to breathe.
The technique is actually slow shallow breathing (only through the nose) and works by increasing the carbon dioxide in the bloodstream, which as you say improves the release of oxygen from the hemoglobin, reducing that suffocating feeling that most asthmatics know so well.
Steve T

DesertYote
May 10, 2013 3:20 pm

Donald L. Klipstein says:
May 10, 2013 at 2:44 pm
GeeJam said in part on May 10, 2013 at 11:14 am:
> Oh and one other thing. Of the 0.04% of the total atmosphere being
> CO2 (400 ppm), 96.775% of this total 400 ppm is still naturally
> occurring. No change. Still the same.
Since probably sometime in the early 20th century, nature has had
net effect of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. The increase since
then is less than man-made CO2 emissions.
###
BZZT Wrong answer. If your brain was not so overloaded with leftist propaganda, you might have been able to figure out were you went wrong before you made a fool of yourself. Hint: Sources are independent of sinks. Sheesh. Didn’t your mom teach you any DiffEq?

DesertYote
May 10, 2013 3:24 pm

Steve T says:
May 10, 2013 at 3:17 pm
###
Its lactic acid that causes hemoglobin to release oxygen, as any teleost fish will tell you (its how the swim bladder works).

May 10, 2013 3:36 pm

grumpydenier says:
May 10, 2013 at 2:33 pm
Considering that CO2 levels were measured at levels close to 500ppm during the years covering WWII and quickly fell back post-war
The 500 ppmv were taken at the wrong places: over land where one can measure 600 ppmv during inversion at night and 250 ppm during a sunny day… Not remotely representative for global levels. Think about the quantities involved, if that were global figures: the equivalent of burning 1/3rd of all land vegetation on and regrowing it in a few years time. Even not possible in war times. Measurements taken over the oceans in the previous years show values around the ice core levels for the same periods.

Jimbo
May 10, 2013 3:36 pm

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

Planck
May 10, 2013 3:39 pm

I wonder if Gore talks to his neighbours. Anyone know who they are?

May 10, 2013 3:46 pm

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

May 10, 2013 3:46 pm

DesertYote says:
May 10, 2013 at 3:20 pm
BZZT Wrong answer. If your brain was not so overloaded with leftist propaganda, you might have been able to figure out were you went wrong before you made a fool of yourself. Hint: Sources are independent of sinks. Sheesh. Didn’t your mom teach you any DiffEq?
No, simple elementary school math:
increase in the atmosphere = human emissions + natural emissions – natural sinks
human emissions are appr. 8 GtC/yr, based on fossil fuel sales and burning efficiency
increase in the atmosphere is measured and is about 4 GtC/yr (~2 ppmv/yr).
Thus the above equation gets for one year:
4 GtC = 8 GtC + natural emissions – natural sinks
and
natural emissions – natural sinks = -4 GtC
If you can tell me how nature can be the cause of the increase over at least the past 50 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg
I am very interested…

Robert of Ottawa
May 10, 2013 3:46 pm

Great headline, great T-shirt. I’ll buy one.

May 10, 2013 3:46 pm

I’ve had headaches in the past couple of days. You have just explained it. Who do I sue?

Robert of Ottawa
May 10, 2013 3:57 pm

jc says @ May 10, 2013 at 11:17 am
These people are not just idiots. They are retarded.

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

Chuck Nolan
May 10, 2013 4:01 pm

Just caught an email with this link about open government data.
2 min video.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/05/09/landmark-steps-liberate-open-data
cn

May 10, 2013 4:02 pm

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

Steve T
May 10, 2013 4:07 pm

DesertYote says:
May 10, 2013 at 3:24 pm
Steve T says:
May 10, 2013 at 3:17 pm
###
Its lactic acid that causes hemoglobin to release oxygen, as any teleost fish will tell you (its how the swim bladder works).
***********************************************************************************************
Non of my teleost friends will tell me exactly how it works, but a quick bit of research informs me that it is the acidity of lactic acid which causes the hemoglobin to release oxygen into the swim bladder.
Couldn’t an increase of CO2, which would also create acidity, have the same reaction on hemoglobin in humans. Empirically, I know that the breathing exercises I learnt increase my lung CO2 levels, I don’t know about any effect the breathing exercises have on my lactic acid levels.
Steve T

May 10, 2013 4:11 pm

Gbees says:
May 10, 2013 at 1:49 pm
I’ve never really understood why CO2 is measured on or near a volcano. CO2 is abundant in and around them even when not errupting. Someone please explain?
Just coincidence, the first measurements with the new CO2 measurement instruments were done at the South Pole. A new meteorological station was opened at Mauna Loa some year later. Keeling expected that most of the time the winds at the stations were the Trade Winds over the oceans, not influenced by the volcanic vents. That indeed was/is the case. The South Pole lacks a few years of continuous measurements (but still had bi-weekly flask samples), therefore Mauna Loa has the longest continuous record.
See the difference in raw data (including all local influences) for a year Mauna Loa and the South Pole:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_mlo_spo_raw_select_2008.jpg
The averages are calculated without the outliers, but show the same seasonal variability and trend.
See further the interesting autobiography of Keeling about the CO2 measurements story:
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/publications/keeling_autobiography.pdf

Robert of Ottawa
May 10, 2013 4:11 pm

Ferdinand Engelbeen postulates at May 10, 2013 at 3:46 pm
increase in the atmosphere = human emissions + natural emissions – natural sinks
human emissions are appr. 8 GtC/yr, based on fossil fuel sales and burning efficiency
increase in the atmosphere is measured and is about 4 GtC/yr (~2 ppmv/yr).

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

May 10, 2013 4:15 pm

So what are they going to do when nothing happens?

May 10, 2013 4:22 pm

Nicholas Tesdorf says:
May 10, 2013 at 4:02 pm
CO2 levels measured at Cape Grim in January are 391.2 ppm. The missing 8.8 ppm of CO2 must be coming from the volcanoes at Mauna Loa.
No, opposite seasons and a lag between the SH and the NH:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/month_2002_2004_4s.jpg
here for Samoa and the South Pole in the NH, but I suppose that Cape Grim has the same lag. The lag points to a source in the NH, where most of the human emissions take place and the ITCZ slows down the air mass exchanges between the NH and the SH, including CO2 and aerosols.

May 10, 2013 4:28 pm

How am I still alive?

May 10, 2013 4:31 pm

Robert of Ottawa says:
May 10, 2013 at 4:11 pm
Ferdinand Engelbeen postulates at May 10, 2013 at 3:46 pm
The “carbon budget” of the planet is poorly understood. I see a lot of hand-waving and large error bars.
One doesn’t need to know any individual natural CO2 flow, neither the sum of all natural ins and outs to know that nature can’t be the cause of the increase in the atmosphere. Nature was a net sink for CO2, not a source over the past 50 years (at least).
Human emissioms are reasonably estimated at 8 GtC/yr, based on sales (taxes!), maybe a little underestimated because of under the counter sales (-1 to + 1.5 GtC/yr) and measurements are quite accurate (+/- 0.4 GtC/yr).

Chuck Nolan
May 10, 2013 4:32 pm

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

Chuck Nolan
May 10, 2013 4:36 pm

That’s I’d
cn

OldWeirdHarold
May 10, 2013 4:40 pm

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

RockyRoad
May 10, 2013 4:48 pm

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

May 10, 2013 5:06 pm

With the final arctic blast of the year expected to invade the Ohio valley this weekend, smart corn farmers will hold off planting corn a week longer. So where does that put us? According to the USDA:
“Corn: By May 5, producers had planted 12 percent of this
year’s corn crop, 57 percentage points behind last year and
35 points behind the 5-year average. Despite increased
fieldwork throughout much of the major corn-producing
region, overall planting progress continued at the slowest pace
since 1984. In Iowa, producers took advantage of warmer
early-week weather and planted 6 percent of their crop before
cold, snowy weather forced them out of their fields toward
week’s end. Nationally, emergence advanced to 3 percent by
May 5, twenty-six percentage points behind last year and
12 points behind the 5-year average. This represents the
slowest emergence pace on since records began in 1999.”
All those stark, empty corn fields. Acres and and acres and acres, not using a bit of CO2.
If Global warming was real, the dip in CO2 levels would start earlier in the spring, in the northern hemisphere, not later.

jc
May 10, 2013 5:12 pm

@Robert of Ottawa says:
May 10, 2013 at 3:57 pm
jc says @ May 10, 2013 at 11:17 am
These people are not just idiots. They are retarded.
Wrong diagnosis. These people are malevolent, in pursuit of their own interests. Al Gore doesn’t believe the carp he spews; he makes money from it. The EPA doesn’t care a darn about the environment, just more micro-control of society; a bigger and better funded EPA.
——————————————————————————————————————–
I fully agree. Retardation and malevolence are not mutually exclusive.
In this example though, I think retardation has the upper hand. In any case, apart from the active originators and strategists, there are definitley those for whom retardation is the defining quality, who can be used to cheer for victory. It’s a broad church, at least in relation to the dysfunctional and criminal.

Tom J
May 10, 2013 5:20 pm

A few years back when I was in pulmonary rehab the pulmonary therapist described an extraordinary young woman, also in rehab at the same time, although I didn’t personally meet her.
She was a cystic fibrosis patient. Someone is born with that and it is one nasty disease. Years ago, few patients made it past eighteen. Perhaps for most cystic fibrosis patients a lung transplant will be on the horizon. The 5 year survival rate for an LT, at least at that time and probably still is 50%. This 30 year old woman had had one 10 years prior.
Surprisingly, there actually are living donors for a lung transplant, but that’s a complex three person operation and very uncommon. Almost all donors are deceased. If successful, past 5 years, the life expectancy of the transplanted organ from a deceased donor is generally 10 years.
With her transplanted organ, beginning to fail after the sustained attack upon it by her immune system, this amazing young woman was staring at another transplant. Amazing? She was also a mother.
Think hard about all of that. Human beings are not a living creature upon this planet that will easily meet its doom. And think what medical science accomplished for this young woman who had the courage to accept it. I know personally the courage that would take. And I know I don’t have it.
I’m pretty damn sick and tired of the likes of Al Gore and his worshipers trying to scare us and tell us we’re doomed. That woman clearly didn’t view things that way and she faced adversity the likes of which Al Gore and his minions at Scientific American could never imagine. People cling to life and what modern life can offer. And they will not easily go back in time. So to Al and SA all I can say is; don’t you dare try to drag us back there, let alone pick our pockets while trying to do so.

page488
May 10, 2013 5:25 pm

Sign me up for a T-shirt!

May 10, 2013 5:27 pm

The truly stupid (as in ironic) thing is man-made climate-apocalypse alarmists are the ones who believe the climate is meant to stay the same, more or less, for now anyway.
However, those who doubt the AGW hypothesis believe that the climate can and does change, a lot, due to natural cycles. Most of us believe it is changing now, as we speak (to a cooling trend, based on the data that shows despite higher CO2, warming has paused, and also based on analyses of other forcing factors). Not only do we believe it changes, we believe we are unlikely to be able to stop it from changing.
In fact, we find that idea bordering on absurd.
And yet you geniuses came up with the term climate change deniers.
Which is irrational on its face, and well-illustrates your thought processes.

jaymam
May 10, 2013 5:30 pm
May 10, 2013 6:01 pm

dbstealey says:
May 10, 2013 at 1:28 pm
And this chart will help bring you back down to earth.
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image_thumb265.png?w=636&h=294
=================
at first I didn’t get it cause the picture was kind of small. 130 years of GISS temps and you need a magnifying glass to see the change. You would be very hard pressed to notice so little a difference on your average outside thermometer around the house.
If anything GISS is strong evidence that there is no climate change in 130 years. It is only when you blow the scale up to a fraction of a degree that any change can be seen.

AndyG55
May 10, 2013 6:02 pm

Should I now change my mantra from “toward 700ppm” to
“Toward 800ppm”
Unfortunately, I doubt we are ever likely to get there 🙁

May 10, 2013 6:05 pm

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

AndyG55
May 10, 2013 6:05 pm

And Fred,,, GISS is the most manipulated temperature series around. Massive adjustments to create the trend from the mid 1900’s .. just to support the cause.
Well, they can’t adjust much any more because the satellite record would show them up big time.
… and the temperature has been basically steady ever since.

AndyG55
May 10, 2013 6:06 pm

I meant Ferd, not Fred… sorry !

Ed, Mr. Jones
May 10, 2013 6:08 pm

For the older readers, ring a Bell?: Climate = “99 and 44/100 %” not CO2.
“Close enough for Government work”.

John Tofflemire
May 10, 2013 6:09 pm

Anthony,
You forgot to mention this embarassing front-page hysterical headline piece in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html?ref=global-home

gymnosperm
May 10, 2013 6:10 pm

What makes you think carbonists can remember what was on the front of a T shirt by the time they walk around to the back?

Plank
May 10, 2013 6:13 pm

Ha ha. I can just see Gore now …. knocking on the door of his neighbor to discuss how they may avert CO2 rising higher than 400ppm ….. http://www.justluxe.com/lifestyle/real-estate/feature-641517.php

AndyG55
May 10, 2013 6:13 pm

Christoph, Its only by pulling the 1930-40 down that they can create anything other than a dip through the 1970’s.. The temps now seem to be reasonably similar to the REAL temps of the 19030-40s..
Up and down goes the temperature, its just come up a bit, just about to start going down a bit.

May 10, 2013 6:14 pm

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
May 10, 2013 at 4:31 pm
Nature was a net sink for CO2, not a source over the past 50 years (at least).
=============
Humans are part of nature.
What you say was assumed true, based on limited evidence. However, satellite monitoring has shown the industrialized counties to be a net sink for CO2 as they are regrowing their forests. The poor countries of the 3rd world that are burning their forests fuel and farmland and along with the tropical oceans are the net source of increased CO2.

May 10, 2013 6:20 pm

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

M E Wood
May 10, 2013 6:22 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_of_the_Triffids John Wynham 1951 It has influenced those with a non scientific outlook since then.

Olaf Koenders
May 10, 2013 6:28 pm

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

Thanks David. I survived them too. Maybe we should put this on a tee:
10 Impending Ice Age
20 Ozone Depletion
30 Acid Rain
40 Toxic Rain
50 Y2K
60 Bird Flu
70 Swine Flu
80 Global Economic Collapse (fossil fuel depletion)
90 Global Starvation (population exceeding food supply)
100 Catastrophic AGW
110 Goto 10

May 10, 2013 6:28 pm

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

Much larger changes happen, Andy.

u.k.(us)
May 10, 2013 6:35 pm

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

Louis Hooffstetter
May 10, 2013 6:40 pm

I’ll never forget exactly where I was when I heard…
1. Kennedy was assasinated,
2. the space shuttle Challenger exploded,
3. the Twin Towers fell, and
4. CO2 levels reached 400 ppm!
On second thought… scratch that last one.

Reply to  Louis Hooffstetter
May 10, 2013 6:54 pm

@ Louis Hooffstetter
Everyone else will, when they are freezing due to the subdued solar cycle.

durango12
May 10, 2013 6:43 pm

The boys have been preparing for this moment for years. Let the propaganda begin

May 10, 2013 6:44 pm

@Louis Hooffstetter … and Y2K.

u.k.(us)
May 10, 2013 7:17 pm

Earthquake in the Midwest soon to be reported ?

Jeff Alberts
May 10, 2013 8:13 pm

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

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

random1618
May 10, 2013 8:23 pm

These people are not just idiots. They are retarded.
Wrong diagnosis. These people are malevolent, in pursuit of their own interests. Al Gore doesn’t believe the carp he spews; he makes money from it. The EPA doesn’t care a darn about the environment, just more micro-control of society; a bigger and better funded EPA.
——————————————————————————————————————–
I fully agree. Retardation and malevolence are not mutually exclusive.
In this example though, I think retardation has the upper hand. In any case, apart from the active originators and strategists, there are definitley those for whom retardation is the defining quality, who can be used to cheer for victory. It’s a broad church, at least in relation to the dysfunctional and criminal.
—————————————————————————————————————————
Actually CO2 Zombie Apocalypse describes the alarmist crowd the best.

Marian
May 10, 2013 8:33 pm

“John Tillman says:
May 10, 2013 at 10:47 am
Global temperature down; CO2 up.
That’s why the tax-grubbing scaremongers are now called catastrophic anthropomorphic “climate change” alarmists (CACCA) instead of CA “global warming” advocates, which isn’t as catchy.”
Yeah.
And if a cooler trend continues. Those of the likes of Al Gore and Co will probably do a U-turn and blame higher CO2 levels for Global Cooling and a new coming Ice Age. The spin will probably go something on the lines of keeping CO2 emissions to 350ppm so as to keep Gaia from freezing over. Since there’s been a lot of $$$ at stake in the whole CO2 based CC scam.

Steven O'Halloran
May 10, 2013 8:41 pm

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

lurker passing through, laughing
May 10, 2013 8:52 pm

I need two size large t-shirts, please.

RoHa
May 10, 2013 9:00 pm

We’re doomed, of course.

u.k.(us)
May 10, 2013 9:11 pm

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

May 10, 2013 9:13 pm

I’ll bring the cake if someone else brings the 400 candles!

May 10, 2013 9:16 pm

Ferd Berple,
Always interesting comments from you! Thanks for posting.
And I just came across this story on Dr Roy Spencer, and Dr Christy, and models, etc. Pretty good, IMHO.

May 10, 2013 9:20 pm

Steven O’Halloran,
I see you have no familiarity with the climate Null Hypothesis, which has never been falsified.
The Null says that past climate parameters [temperature, humidity, extreme weather events, etc.] have not been exceeded by the current climate.
This means that nothing we observe today is either unusual or unprecedented. IOW, it is just normal weather.
Wake me when a past climate parameter has been exceeded. Until then, worry on your own time.

davidmhoffer
May 10, 2013 9:52 pm

Steven O’Halloran says:
May 10, 2013 at 8:41 pm
So, were all of you as cynical when Sandy hit New Jersey and New York? Was that a non-event?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All you need do it type “Sandy” into the search box and you’ll find the answer to your question. We discussed for example that the storm track itself shows no warming for the last 70 years:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/05/an-inconvenient-truth-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-along-sandys-track-havent-warmed-in-70-years/
We discussed that it was not at all unprecedented:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/02/next-time-somebody-tries-to-tell-you-hurricane-sandy-was-an-unprecedented-east-coast-hurricane-show-them-this/
We discussed that the US is actually in a hurricane drought:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/01/pielke-jr-on-hurricane-sandy-not-the-new-normal/
As well as that not only was the storm within normal parameters, but that much of the damage was due to poor planning and design of infrastructure in densely populated areas and a whole host of other issues were dealt with in detail as well. Just one word in the search box Steven, and you can see for yourself.
Or the wild fires, droughts, flooding, or tornados, were they? It’s not helpful to just disregard changes in the climate (or the world for that matter)–it helps to understand those changes.
Nor is it helpful to invent changes that haven’t occurred! The next major IPCC report already admits that the global frequency of wild fires, droughts and flooding hasn’t changed in the last century and that tornadoes and hurricanes have not only dropped in frequency and intensity, but that the scientists are now predicting even LESS nor more of them. Type AR5 in the search box, see for yourself.
If you educate yourself instead of presuming the ignorance of the readership, you just might join our cynicism.

Pierre-Normand
May 10, 2013 9:59 pm

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

Silver Ralph
May 10, 2013 10:22 pm

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

William Astley
May 10, 2013 10:31 pm

Skeptic’s Hockey Stick Animation
The 20th century warming is not unusual. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleoclimatic record. All most all of the last 10,000 years has been warmer than the current warmer period.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif
Scientific analysis does not support the IPCC general circulation models. The IPCC GCM are not correct (the error is in how the GCM, model clouds in the tropics)
The IPCC general circulation models require water vapor in the atmosphere to amplify (positive feedback) the CO2 forcing to arrive at 3C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Lindzen and Choi’s analysis of top of the atmosphere radiation emissions Vs changes in the ocean surface temperatures showed that the planet resists rather than amplifies forcing changes. Based on Lindzen and Choi’s satellite analysis a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C warming.
Lindzen and Choi’s analysis’ result (the earth resists forcing change, negative feedback rather than positive feedback) is supported by Idso’s analysis of 8 actual step type temperature changes that occur on the earth to determine the earth’s sensitivity to a change in forcing. The 8 independent step change analysis cases each gave a negative sensitivity for a forcing change (the earth resists the forcing change rather than amplifies the forcing change).
Using the paper’s calculated sensitivity of 0.1C/(watt/m^2) and the IPCC’s assumed forcing change for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 of 4.5 watts/m^2, the calculate warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is 0.45C.
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10//c010p069.pdf
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change
Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena that reveal how Earth’s near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. These studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration could raise the planet’s mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C. Even this modicum of warming may never be realized, however, for it could be negated by a number of planetary cooling forces that are intensified by warmer temperatures and by the strengthening of biological processes that are enhanced by the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that drives the warming. Several of these cooling forces have individually been estimated to be of equivalent magnitude, but of opposite sign, to the typically predicted greenhouse effect of a doubling of the air’s CO2 content, which suggests to me that little net temperature change will ultimately result from the ongoing buildup of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. Consequently, I am skeptical of the predictions of significant CO2-induced global warming that are being made by state-of-the-art climate models and believe that much more work on a wide variety of research fronts will be required to properly resolve the issue.
A final set of empirical evidence that may be brought to bear upon the issue of CO2-induced climate change pertains to the greenhouse effect of water vapor over the tropical oceans (Raval & Ramanathan 1989, Ramanathan & Collins 1991, Lubin 1994). This phenomenon has recently been quantified by Valero et al. (1997), who used airborne radiometric measurements
and sea surface temperature data to evaluate its magnitude over the equatorial Pacific. Their direct measurements reveal that a 14.0 W m–2 increase in downward-directed thermal radiation at the surface of the sea increases surface water temperatures by 1.0°C; and dividing the latter of these 2 numbers by the former yields a surface water temperature sensitivity factor of 0.071°C/(W m–2), which would imply a similar surface air temperature sensitivity factor at equilibrium. By comparison, if I equate my best estimate of the surface air temperature sensitivity factor of the world as a whole [0.100°C/(W m–2)] with the sum of the appropriately-weighted land and water surface factors [0.3 0.172°C/(W m–2) + 0.7 W, where W is the surface air temperature sensitivity factor over the open ocean], I obtain a value of 0.069°C/(W m–2) for the ocean-based component of the whole-Earth surface air temperature sensitivity factor in close agreement with the results of Valero et al.
http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf
“On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications by Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000- 2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. … … We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. …. … CO2, a relatively minor greenhouse gas, has increased significantly since the beginning of the industrial age from about 280 ppmv to about 390 ppmv, presumably due mostly to man’s emissions. This is the focus of current concerns. However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. …”

Hoser
May 10, 2013 11:26 pm

Ahh, the lovely sound of crickets, waiting to gobble up all those lovely greens growing profusely in an abundance of CO2. The world at peace and in harmony…. all except those silly Homo sapiens.
Red lines crossed, green lines crossed… Does any of it matter when the crickets are singing? They’ll still be doing it 1 million years from now. Will we? If not, it won’t be because we made the oceans boil with too much CO2.

May 11, 2013 12:01 am

ferd berple says:
May 10, 2013 at 6:14 pm
Humans are part of nature.
Indeed, but the rest of nature is not burning coal, oil and gas buried millions of years ago in the same quantities as humans do…
What you say was assumed true, based on limited evidence. However, satellite monitoring has shown the industrialized counties to be a net sink for CO2 as they are regrowing their forests. The poor countries of the 3rd world that are burning their forests fuel and farmland and along with the tropical oceans are the net source of increased CO2.
The satellite image you mentioned was from one month in summer, whenthe NH forests are huge sinks. A film over several years gives a better idea of the CO2 movements. See:
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/news_archive/2010-03-30-CO2-Movie/
But as human emissions are a small part of the total movements, these are hard to see in the satellite data. Which doesn’t mean that they are negligible, as that are one-way additions while the natural flows are mainly in and out circulation with slightly more sink than source.

Myrrh
May 11, 2013 12:06 am

There is no way to tell carbon dioxide from volcanic activity from carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuel combustion – none of the claims made from the very beginning by Callendar/Keeling are based on actual measurements of man made. It’s an illusion.
All they have done is from the beginning is say that it is man made increase while measuring all sources, and, that’s besides Keeling et all fiddling Mauna Loa to show a trend – arbitrarily deciding what is “volcanic” and what is “pristine well mixed background” sitting on top of the world’s biggest active volcano surrounded by active volcanoes in the possibly biggest volcanic hot spot in warm seas, is not science. It is a trick.
Arbitrarily – COD: arbitrary 1. Derived from mere opinion or random choice; capricious; unrestrained; despotic.
Callendar chose a ridiculously low figure for the mythical “well-mixed” background they concocted and Keeling created the illusion of an increased “trend”.
http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
Volcanic Carbon Dioxide
Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)
Consulting Geologist
Uploaded ISO:2009-Oct-25
Revision 2 ISO:2011-Dec-11
“Abstract
A brief survey of the literature concerning volcanogenic carbon dioxide emission finds that estimates of subaerial emission totals fail to account for the diversity of volcanic emissions and are unprepared for individual outliers that dominate known volcanic emissions. DeeDeepening the apparent mystery of total volcanogenic CO2 emission, there is no magic fingerprint with which to identify industrially produced CO2 as there is insufficient data to distinguish the effects of volcanic CO2 from fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. Molar ratios of O2 consumed to CO2 produced are, moreover, of little use due to the abundance of processes (eg. weathering, corrosion, etc) other than volcanic CO2 emission and fossil fuel consumption that are, to date, unquantified. Furthermore, the discovery of a surprising number of submarine volcanoes highlights the underestimation of global volcanism and provides a loose basis for an estimate that may partly explain ocean acidification and rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels observed last century, as well as shedding much needed light on intensified polar spring melts. Based on this brief literature survey, we may conclude that volcanic CO2 emissions are much higher than previously estimated, and as volcanic CO2 contributions are effectively indistinguishable from industrial CO2 contributions, we cannot glibly assume that the increase of atmospheric CO2 is exclusively anthropogenic.”
They have never, ever, shown man made increase. It is a trick, an illusion. They have never shown man made distinct from volcanic and they have deliberately downplayed the amount of volcanic activity.
This 400 ppm has been available all the time since Keeling began measurements, his curve is manufactured by adjusting to get it to show a trend of his mythical “well-mixed background” which he couldn’t tell apart from natural – there is no such thing as well mixed background – AIRS concluded it didn’t exist and that CO2 was lumpy – i.e. localised. They have still not released the top and bottom of troposphere measurements which they included to get their conclusion. This is no different from the temperature shenanigans.
http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Video-Revelle_Admits_CO2_Theory_Wrong

May 11, 2013 12:06 am

I survived 400,000 parts per billion
BBC CO2 cant fails honesty test http://twitpic.com/cpqowe/full

May 11, 2013 12:46 am

Myrrh says:
May 11, 2013 at 12:06 am
There is no way to tell carbon dioxide from volcanic activity from carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuel combustion
Myrrh, as said several times to you: volcanic CO2 (either subduction or magma) has a higher 13C/12C ratio than the atmosphere. Fossil fuels CO2 have much lower ratios. Thus any substantial release of CO2 from volcanoes (or from the oceans, including deep ocean volcanoes) would INcrease the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere. But we see a firm DEcrease in lockstep with human emissions. Only the release of vegetation decay would have the same effect, but vegetation is a proven net sink for CO2, as can be calculated from the oxygen balance. That a geologist doesn’t know that makes me wonder about his knowledge…
This 400 ppm has been available all the time since Keeling began measurements, his curve is manufactured by adjusting to get it to show a trend of his mythical “well-mixed background” which he couldn’t tell apart from natural
Think before you write such nonsense. It is impossible to manipulate the Keeling curve, without including hundreds of people from tens of institutes in a lot of countries. They all find the same increase over time. The only possible way is by manipulating the calibration gases (at 0.005 ppmv/day!), but even there, Scripps still is using their own calibrations, independent of NOAA.
When Keeling started his measurements, he and his boss Revelle still were thinking that more CO2 would be beneficial. They started measurements long before the 1970’s cooling scare or de 1990’s warming scare. Keeling had no interest in manufacturing a curve, he was only interested to maintain the best observations…

May 11, 2013 1:24 am

May 8th, CO2 day
until the Earth reaches 500ppm (could be very very long time)

May 11, 2013 3:09 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen says: May 11, 2013 at 12:46 am
………….
That is all fine, except for one thing, the change in CO2 levels doesn’t change N. Hemisphere temperature, but it could be the other way around.
What then changes the temperature? you may ask.
Here is far more credible hypothesis:
There is a chain of natural variability in the N. Atlantic illustrated here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA-NV.htm
-Tectonic activity in the N. Atlantic for some unknown reason correlates with sunspot count
– tectonics continuously varies balance of warm and cold currents to the north and south of Iceland.
– where there is strong sea-atmosphere interaction, several hundred of W/m2 of heat is released into atmosphere, cooling warm currents before their down-welling.
– released heat changes atmospheric pressure around Iceland (principal NAO component), altering path of the polar jet-stream.
– effects of the jet-stream meandering is well understood.
You may not have bothered to read above, or even less to consider it, but then it is your choice what to think, what to believe and finally preach, but as usual doctrinaire convictions are often devoid of reality.
And yes
more CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere, including us humans, regardless of our imperfections either of body or mind.

James Bull
May 11, 2013 3:15 am

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

Myrrh
May 11, 2013 3:52 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
May 11, 2013 at 12:46 am
Myrrh says:
May 11, 2013 at 12:06 am
“There is no way to tell carbon dioxide from volcanic activity from carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuel combustion”
Myrrh, as said several times to you: volcanic CO2 (either subduction or magma) has a higher 13C/12C ratio than the atmosphere. Fossil fuels CO2 have much lower ratios. Thus any substantial release of CO2 from volcanoes (or from the oceans, including deep ocean volcanoes) would INcrease the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere. But we see a firm DEcrease in lockstep with human emissions. Only the release of vegetation decay would have the same effect, but vegetation is a proven net sink for CO2, as can be calculated from the oxygen balance. That a geologist doesn’t know that makes me wonder about his knowledge…
Shrug – without providing a scrap of evidence that any of the measurements since Callendar/Keeling have ever shown a distinct man made amount. The real consensus scientists of the IPCC 95 was that there was no discernible man made signal, this was changed by Houghton/Santer to say “it was all man made fault”. That there in a nutshell proves that data manipulation in play. You’re part of that generation of confusion.
Keeling didn’t, and they still don’t, make any of their measurements based on this, they merely chuck out anything they consider “volcanic” because of great amount, and measure when they get an hour or more of “stable” amounts – they include volcanic and natural in that because there is no way they separate it or can separate it.
If they could separate it they would take all measurements and analyse from all of what is ‘man made’ and what ‘volcanic’ or otherwise ‘natural’ local and what comes in on the wind.
This is sleight of hand bs ing, there are no man made even attempted.
“Carbon in the air is made up of 12C (99%), 13C (1%), and 14C (1 per trillion)” http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/met102/docs/global_warming_man_or_myth.pdf
I don’t know how accurate this is.
http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
“The misuse of the Suess Effect as a fossil fuel fingerprint instead of an empirical standard for the correction of carbon dating contamination, lead to an initially idiosyncratic expansion of this concept by Keeling (1979), who sought to include 13C depletion of vegetation and its effect on the atmosphere. The atmosphere is enriched in 13CO2 by the process of photosynthesis, which favours the assimilation of 12C into plant tissue during growth (Furquhar et al., 1989). This is used to differentiate between terrestrial and oceanic CO2 sources (Keeling et al., 2005), and the concept, proposed by Craig (1954), is actually older than Suess’ original research. Moreover, plant based fossil fuel derivatives are therefore considered to be 13C depleted. Following this line of logic, fossil fuel emissions, being derived from plants, should be 13CO2 depleted as well. However, when the Keeling (1979) article expanded its internal definition of the Suess Effect to include this observation, it was once again to the exclusion of volcanic influence.
“In point of fact, magmatic carbon is, for the most part, 13C depleted. This is solidly confirmed by numerous studies of deep mantle rocks (Deines et al., 1987; Pineau & Mathez, 1990; Cartigny et al., 1997; Zheng et al., 1998; Puustinen & Karhu, 1999; Ishikawa & Marayuma, 2001; Schultz et al., 2004; Cartigny et al., 2009; Statchel & Harris, 2009) as well as mid-oceanic ridge outgassing (De Marais & Moore, 1984). Moreover, 13C depletion of volcanic emissions is so well known that Korte and Kozur (2010) explore volcanism, amongst other possible causes, in search of an explanation for atmospheric depletion of 13C across the Permian-Triassic boundary. Although many significant carbonates are not 13C depleted, they are eventually subducted along with organic carbon sources depleted in 13C. Nevertheless, the emissions of continental margin and back arc volcanoes that source a significant proportion of their carbon from subducted volatiles, remain 13C depleted (eg. Giggenbach et al., 1991; Sano et al., 1995; Hernández et al., 2001). Thus, as plants continue to enrich the atmosphere in 13C while supplying the 13C depleted kerogen that is subducted into the mantle, volatiles failing to return to the surface may cause the mantle to become increasingly 13C depleted over time. Moreover, the significant proportion of volcanic carbon dioxide that diffuses through the soil (Gerlach, 1991) has its carbon isotope chemistry further contaminated by 13 depleted biogenic soil carbon (Hernández et al., 2001).
Both tectonic and volcanic CO2 are magmatic and depleted in both 13C & 14C. In the absence of statistically significant isotope determinations for each volcanic province contributing to the atmosphere, this makes CO2 contributions of volcanic origin isotopically indistinguishable from those of fossil fuel consumption. It is therefore unsurprising to find that Segalstad (1998) points out that 96% of atmospheric CO2 is isotopically indistinguishable from volcanic degassing. So much for the Royal Society’s unexplained “chemical analysis”. If you believe that we know enough about volcanic gas compositions to distinguish them chemically from fossil fuel combustion, you have indeed been mislead. As we shall see, the number of active volcanoes is unknown, never mind a tally of gas signatures belonging to every active volcano. We have barely scratched the surface and as such, there is no magic fingerprint that can distinguish between anthropogenic and volcanogenic sources of CO2.”
“This 400 ppm has been available all the time since Keeling began measurements, his curve is manufactured by adjusting to get it to show a trend of his mythical “well-mixed background” which he couldn’t tell apart from natural”
Think before you write such nonsense. It is impossible to manipulate the Keeling curve, without including hundreds of people from tens of institutes in a lot of countries. They all find the same increase over time. The only possible way is by manipulating the calibration gases (at 0.005 ppmv/day!), but even there, Scripps still is using their own calibrations, independent of NOAA.
When Keeling started his measurements, he and his boss Revelle still were thinking that more CO2 would be beneficial. They started measurements long before the 1970′s cooling scare or de 1990′s warming scare. Keeling had no interest in manufacturing a curve, he was only interested to maintain the best observations…

Callendar/Keeling were pushing ‘man made driving global temps’ as a danger, the environmentalists at the time concerned about smoke pollution, a legitimate worry and the worry that kick started carbon dioxide measurements a couple of centuries earlier, that was Keeling’s agenda, then Callendar linked it to rising temps and and that’s why Callendar became a laughing stock when temps plummeted in the early sixties – pictured shovelling snow.
There is a mix of agendas here adding to the confusion, but the reason this is all so corrupt is because the monied and powerful at govenment level agenda which created the IPCC was kick started by those who wanted a global scare to manipulate society and economics. Their interests are to make this as confusing as possible.
Keeling/Callendar/Ravelle had their own agenda. Ravelle changed his story before he died, finally coming to his senses when he saw how his earlier promotion of the fake fisics had screwed up both science and society.
This is not based on science, it is based on non-scientists abusing science.
It cannot be understood outside of its history.
This history starts with Callendar cherry picking a low mythical “well mixed background” and ends with the IPCC screwing ice core data to fit in with that. Their interests are to make this as confusing as possible. But the manipulations began with Keeling/Scripps which his son continued before this was taken control of to the IPCC agenda. The trend is manufactured and man made never shown.
Show me the AIRS raw data top and bottom of troposphere which they included in their conclusion that to their astonishment “carbon dioxide was not at all well-mixed but lumpy”.
Don’t keep showing the cherry picked mid troposphere which bears no relation to that conclusion.
Lumpy is local. Carbon dioxide is heavier than air, it sinks. Carbon dioxide is in all the rain, carbonic acid. It is constantly coming down to the surface and most of this is in local weather, when the wind stops carbon dioxide will fall to the Earth..
Some will travel on the big wind systems as here: http://www.avvelenata.it/papers/Sendai_CO2.pdf
Winds are volumes, packets, of the real gas air on the move, they are not an imaginary wooden spoon stirring or the gods at the four corners blowing around the non-existant empty space well mixed ideal gas atmosphere of AGW fisics.
As they say, this is how they get their carbon dioxide, and the El Nino peak 97/98 clearly shows this.
The “science” of AGW is corrupted on all levels, which is why their arguments always shift and change.
http://tellusa.net/index.php/tellusa/article/viewFile/9366/10974
This is Keeling’s paper – the magicians trick, saying there is a rise and that it’s man made and giving no information to back that up, only a confusion of graphs which prove nothing of his claim.
[snip – ad hom ~mod] And the future charlatans got on the bank wagon.

Otter
May 11, 2013 4:10 am

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

May 11, 2013 4:16 am

Global Warming is caused by people like you! Everyday living is destructive to the Environment. One of the most important ways people can help save the environment is to STOP HAVING BABIES. Another very important thing you can do is to euthanize your pet. Our company sells Carbon Credits which are the only hope of saving the planet.
For the sake of the planet, we need to act before it’s too late.
Please visit our company’s website for more information. http://greentremayne.com/Carbon_Free_Living.html

May 11, 2013 4:20 am

Volcanoes are wreaking havoc on the Environment! Instead of outlawing these dangerous sources of pollution, residents in states such as Hawaii and Iceland are seeking to profit through “volcano tourism.” We at GreenTremayne are currently working with our friends in Congress to pass laws that will impose a punitive Carbon Tax on states such as Iceland and Hawaii for their greedy exploitation of the volcano tourist industry.
If you live in a state with an active volcano, purchasing GreenTremayne Carbon Credits is a great way to make up for your share of damage to the Environment. For more information, visit http://greentremayne.com/Blog.html
For tips on ways to reduce your Carbon Footprint, visit our company web site http://greentremayne.com/Carbon_Free_Living.html
Namaste,
Daphne Tremayne
Vice President, Public Relations
GreenTremayne.com

Dudley Horscroft
May 11, 2013 4:24 am

If you think 400 ppm may be a trifle high – or absolutely disastrous – try holding your breath as long as you can then breathing out via a gas measuring device. You can quite easily get 120 000 ppm. But it is not really a good idea to breathe it back in again!
Saw on the Goggle Box a few yeas ago Dr Jonathan Miller demonstrating the effects of breathing too much CO2. He placed a large paper bag over his head and tightened it up a bit – not too much – around his neck. OK for a short time then he went unconscious, and bloke behind had to reach over the sofa to rip the bag off his head. Recovered quickly. DO NOT TRY THIS YOURSELF!
Note 400 ppm is a long, long was from 120 000 ppm

May 11, 2013 4:34 am

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

Pierre-Normand
May 11, 2013 4:36 am

vukcevic says: May 11, 2013 at 3:09 am
“That is all fine, except for one thing, the change in CO2 levels doesn’t change N. Hemisphere temperature, but it could be the other way around.”
You also aren’t considering the mass balance, it seems. The recent atmospheric accumulation (over the last few decades) accounts for about half our emissions. The rest must have gone into the oceans and the terrestrial biomass. You are proposing that increased temperatures might have naturally caused the atmospheric increase (mostly through ocean outgassing, I suppose). Are you suggesting that the Southern oceans have at the same time become huge sinks and absorbed the near totality of our emissions? That would means that just as the Northern Hemisphere became a huge net source (up to 2ppm of CO2, or 16 Gt per year), the Southern Hemisphere became a sink twice as effective (32 Gt per year). And this would have occurred in such a manner as to make our emissions fail to contribute. We must also suppose that the southern ocean would have sunken most of our emissions anyway.

Bruce Cobb
May 11, 2013 4:50 am

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

May 11, 2013 5:17 am

Dudley Horscroft says: May 11, 2013 at 4:24 am
……………
Hi Mr. Pierre-Normand
I said …but it could be the other way around
You grafted huge tree onto a sapling. I know very little about CO2 oceanic absorption and outgassing, but it appears there are strong indications that CO2 trails temperature rise rather than the other way around.
It would have been far more productive if you considered what is said in my post
and illustrated here
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA-NV.htm
You may also consider
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CO2-Arc.gif
where change in GMF a proxy of the Arctic tectonic movements
but I will leave it to you to take on someone else on the CO2 oceanic absorption and outgassing.

Editor
May 11, 2013 5:27 am

350.org responds! And says very little, see http://400.350.org . Or not.
At least 400.350 looks bigger than 400, especially in Europe.

Tom in Florida
May 11, 2013 5:29 am

Steven O’Halloran says:
May 10, 2013 at 8:41 pm
“. For example, what does 15,000 on the stock market mean? Is it irrelevant, or does it depend on who you are and where you are? ”
It is irrelevant. The 30 companies used to compute the number change from time to time.
The current number is not based on all the same companies of a few years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average
“The components of the DJIA have changed 48 times in its 117-year history. General Electric has had the longest continuous presence on the index, with its latest addition being in 1907. More recent changes to the index include the following:
On February 19, 2008, Chevron and Bank of America replaced Altria Group and Honeywell. Chevron was previously a Dow component from July 18, 1930, to November 1, 1999. During Chevron’s absence, its split-adjusted price per share went from forty-four dollars to eighty-five, while the price of petroleum rose from twenty-four dollars to a hundred.
On September 22, 2008, Kraft Foods replaced the American International Group (AIG) in the index.[5]
On June 8, 2009, General Motors and Citigroup were replaced by The Travelers Companies and Cisco Systems, which became the third company traded on the NASDAQ to be part of the Dow.[6]
On September 24, 2012, UnitedHealth Group replaced Kraft Foods following Kraft’s spinning off its North American snack food business.[7]”

Bill Illis
May 11, 2013 5:49 am

At 400 ppm,
– we probably really have the highest CO2 levels in 2.77 million years.
I probably have the biggest database of the reliable numbers of anyone.
But CO2 has mostly been around 280 ppm for the last 24 million years since C4 grasses evolved and changed the mix of how much Carbon is held in vegetation at any one time. Over that time period, temperatures have been 4.0C higher than today and -5.0C from today.
http://s10.postimg.org/5fz8g5a3d/CO2_Last_40_Mys.png
The sources for this chart are:
Berner GeoCarb III
Pagani 2005
Antarctic Ice Core Composite
Pagani 1999
Royer 2006 Composites
Pearson 2000
IPCC AR4 2007 – Royer 2008 Composites
Pearson 2009
Tripati 2009
Bao 2008
Hoenisch 2009
Pagani 2010
Beerling Royer 2011
Bartoli 2011
Seki 2010

Mal de mare
May 11, 2013 6:12 am

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

Richard M
May 11, 2013 6:20 am

There’s another scenario that could be happening. Underwater vents and volcanoes could have emitted more CO2 recently. This would change the equilibrium balance between the oceans and the atmosphere. The oceans would absorb less CO2 and since MM CO2 is emitted to the atmosphere we would still see the isotope imbalance.
In fact, anything that changed the ocean CO2 concentration would automatically start a slow march towards equilibrium. Some of those may even be man made. And, land use changes could also be involved.
While human emissions will also affect the balance, there are many possible factors that we have no way of deciphering with our current historic data.

beng
May 11, 2013 6:25 am

Maybe that’s why my lawn is growing a foot a week.

May 11, 2013 6:37 am

Why does Armageddon always happen with a round number?

Bruce Cobb
May 11, 2013 6:38 am

Bill Illis says:
May 11, 2013 at 5:49 am
At 400 ppm,
– we probably really have the highest CO2 levels in 2.77 million years.

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

David Harrington
May 11, 2013 6:40 am

I have been commenting on this over at The Guardian, I cannot believe the Stalinist nature of the moderation. Anything that even remotely dissents from the consensus position is zapped, un believable. Anyone else experiencing the same?
Might be worth a post Anthony, it is really not on to have that level of censorship on a national newspaper website.

David Harrington
May 11, 2013 6:43 am

@Jimbo
Look guys, the more they scream and shout about 400ppm then you reply with 15+ years of temperature standstill. That should get some of them thinking.
Try that at The Guardian and they simply remove your comment and add you to their pre-moderation list, i.e. ban you from posting.

May 11, 2013 6:47 am

Bill Illis says:
May 11, 2013 at 5:49 am
Your chart shows the CO2 self corrects at 400 +/- PPM for the last 25 million years.
See DJ 10 May 12.40 PM.

May 11, 2013 6:48 am

Richard M says:
May 11, 2013 at 6:20 am
Underwater vents and volcanoes could have emitted more CO2 recently. This would change the equilibrium balance between the oceans and the atmosphere.
Quite impossible, because of the 13C/12C ratio of the (deep) oceans, which is way higher than in the atmosphere and we see a huge drop in 13C/12C ratio, both in the atmosphere and in the ocean surface layer (much larger than over the glacial-interglacial transitions over the past 800 kyr). See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
The current drop in 13C/12C ratio is about 1/3rd of what can be expected from fossil fuel burning. That is diluted by the continuous (deep) ocean exchanges of CO2 from the equator to the poles and back via the THC. If that was additional to the human emissions, one would expect a 4 times higher increase in the atmosphere (32 GtC/yr or ~16 ppmv/yr) than from the human emissions alone.
But that is problematic by the mass balance: if humans emit 8 GtC/yr as CO2 and the oceans emit in balance 24 GtC more than they absorb, the difference between 32 GtC extra input per year and the measured yearly increase of 4 GtC (2 ppmv) in the atmosphere must be absorbed by plants (the only other relative fast source/sink). But the oxygen balance only shows a net sink of ~1 GtC/yr by the whole biosphere:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf

May 11, 2013 7:01 am

Bruce Cobb says:
May 11, 2013 at 6:38 am
Very doubtful. I no more believe in the C02 hockeystick than the temperature hockeystick. Agendas abound.
I know, it is difficult to believe anything that comes from climate science… But in this case, the CO2 HS is real, as good as the reverse HS for the 13C/12C ratio over the same period of 160 years sinds the industrial revolution took momentum.
The difference with temperature readings is that similar values are measured everywhere from near ground to about 20 km height and from near the North Pole to the South Pole. Except over the first few hundred meters over land, where huge sources and sinks are at work. All values are within +/- 2% of full scale, including seasonal variations and a NH-SH lag.

David Cage
May 11, 2013 7:07 am

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

May 11, 2013 7:26 am

David Cage says:
May 11, 2013 at 7:07 am
Surely measurements taken on a volcano are as likely to be right as temperature ones taken with the thermometers in a hot air vent.
Sometimes it is better to read what is done to assure that measurements taken are real “background” and not from volcanic vents or vegetation before making comments:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
Measurements influenced by local volcanic vents or vegetation from the valley are not used for averaging. They still are available and including or excluding them doesn’t make any difference in yearly average or trend beyond 0.1 ppmv…
Similar values as at Mauna Loa are measured at the South Pole without any vegetation or volcanoes for thousands of km in the neighbourhood:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_mlo_spo_raw_select_2008.jpg

Bruce Cobb
May 11, 2013 7:33 am

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

Myrrh
May 11, 2013 7:45 am

The 400 t-shirt should have a 19th century date..
1) http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9195-co2-levels-pre-industrial-revolution
“The ice core records show a smooth curve and does not include the variability. Eliminating the variability and using the smoothed curve then gives a false indication of actual CO2 atmospheric conditions. When curve smoothing is done, a lot of important information is ignored. Beck also shows that Charles Keeling, deliberately used afternoon readings when they are the lowest at 12,000 feet elevation, and the readings are only pertinent to maritime volcanoes at 12,000 feet and do not represent global actual levels. (Beck, 2008 “50 Years Of Continuous Measurements Of CO2 On Mauna Lea”, Energy and Environment Vol 19, No 7)
“Charles Keeling’s son continues to operate the Mauna Loa facility, and as Beck states “owns the monopoly of calibration of all CO2 measurements”. Since Keeling is a co-author of IPCC reports, the IPCC accepts that Mauna Lea is representative of global CO2 levels.”
2) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html
“Despite numerous 19th century air measurements showing +300 ppm CO2 levels, and despite the fact that many of the youngest ice cores showed higher than expected CO2 values and so were shifted forward 90-100 years from previously-established dates so that they would match the more elevated CO2 levels of 20th century air samples, the ice core record is today generally used to represent pre-1957 CO2 concentrations. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) places the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at 280 ppm, based largely on the ice core record, although this has never been otherwise substantiated (7).”
3) http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-industrial-and-current-co2-levels-deliberately-corrupted/
Pre-Industrial And Current CO2 Levels Deliberately Corrupted.
by Dr. Tim Ball on May 9, 2012
in Data,Government,History,Land,Oceans,Politics,Theory
“I’ve told this story before but it requires repeating because of awareness of climate science corruption. Even skeptics realize claims of incompetence are inadequate. Official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate science was completely orchestrated for a premeditated result. T.R.Wigley’s 1983 paper “The pre-industrial carbon dioxide level” was pivotal in the evolution of climate science corruption. It was a flawed paper that cherry-picked data to claim pre-industrial CO2 level was 270 ppm. G.S. Callendar did the same thing (diagram), as Zbigniew Jaworowski illustrated in a paper to a 2004 US Senate Committee.”
=====
Corruption of the data has been shown, those who think there is none can’t ignore this. It’s not the fault of those pointing out the corruption that any work done in good faith from the ‘official’ figures will have to be reconsidered.

Patrick
May 11, 2013 7:52 am

“Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
May 11, 2013 at 7:01 am
Bruce Cobb says:
May 11, 2013 at 6:38 am
Very doubtful. I no more believe in the C02 hockeystick than the temperature hockeystick. Agendas abound.
I know, it is difficult to believe anything that comes from climate science… But in this case, the CO2 HS is real,…”
There is no question there re TOTAL CO2. The question is, how much of the “HS” and temp change is a direct CAUSE of emissions of CO2 from human activities? The answer is, at best not measurable, to none!

Bill Illis
May 11, 2013 7:53 am

Ferdinand or anyone,
Have you ever looked at the Greenland ice core CO2 estimates. Basically, they have been abandoned and are never really talked about because of the nonsense results (or let’s say unexpected results, some plus +300ppms etc).
Why this doesn’t appear in the Antarctic ice cores hasn’t really been explained but the assumption is there is some additional chemistry going on in the Greenland ice which distorts the numbers.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/gases/co2.txt
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/grip/gases/gcco2.txt
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/grip/gases/irlsco2.txt
And at the base of the ice cores near bedrock, they were getting 100,000+ ppmv estimates
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/grip/gases/gasbas.txt
Not trying to start any controversies but that might be fun.

May 11, 2013 8:00 am

Bruce Cobb says:
May 11, 2013 at 7:33 am
Historically, C02 levels have risen after a warm period, with a lag time of between 100 to perhaps 800 years.
Indeed, the average increase and decrease over the past 800 kyr was about 8 ppmv/°C with a lag of ~800 +/- 600 years over glacial-interglacial tranisitions and several thousands of years for the opposite transition. But this quite good relationship (correl. 0.86) was broken some 160 years ago, by coincidence at the moment that humans started to emit ever increasing amounts of CO2. Not only in quantity, but also depleted of 13C and absent of 14C. See the change in ice cores:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_010kyr.jpg
Thus there was a direct relation between CO2 levels and temperature, with CO2 lagging, but nowadays CO2 is leading, as we are about 100 ppmv above the temperature dictated equilibrium.
In how far that influences temperature is an entirely different question, where the answer is certainly not given by the current climate models…

JP
May 11, 2013 8:04 am

“So please, take this day and the milestone it represents to reflect on the fragility of our civilization and and the planetary ecosystem on which it depends. Rededicate yourself to the task of saving our future. Talk to your neighbors, call your legislator, let your voice be heard. We must take immediate action to solve this crisis. ”
Yes, 400 is such an evil number. The number 666 holds nothing to 400.
But, how much of that 400 does ALGORE’s lifestyle contribute?

May 11, 2013 8:07 am

Patrick says:
May 11, 2013 at 7:52 am
The question is, how much of the “HS” and temp change is a direct CAUSE of emissions of CO2 from human activities?
From the CO2 HS, some 90+ ppmv is directly the result of human emissions, some 8 ppmv may be from the increase in ocean temperatures since the LIA.
From the temperature HS, the reverse may apply: 90% natural and 10% from the extra CO2, but that is a wild guess, not better than the overblown “projections” from current climate models…

Colas92
May 11, 2013 8:17 am

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

rtj1211
May 11, 2013 8:17 am

‘Please sir: I want some more HEAT!!’
‘MORE?? MORE??????????????’
Anthony, Anthony, never before has a boy wanted warmth!!
I’m sure there’s a musical in there somewhere. It’s just that Scrooge wasn’t probably a tax n spend global warmer, was he???

Joel Heinrich
May 11, 2013 8:48 am

Yeah, that’s typical. Let some highly adjusted American station hit 400 ppm and the world goes crazy, but if some German site hits 570 ppm no one cares. As it did nearly 8 years ago…
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/wdcgg/cgi-bin/wdcgg/quick_plot.cgi?imagetype=png&dataid=200702142853

May 11, 2013 8:58 am

Bill Illis says:
May 11, 2013 at 7:53 am
Have you ever looked at the Greenland ice core CO2 estimates. Basically, they have been abandoned and are never really talked about because of the nonsense results (or let’s say unexpected results, some plus +300ppms etc).
All ice cores receive dust from their neighbourhood, including seasalt (chlorides, sulphates and carbonates). That is no problem for the Antarctic ice cores, as the carbonates don’t decompose at the neutral conditions and low temperatures at measurement time (and there is far less dust deposit in the inland Antarctic cores).
It is a problem in the Greenland ice core, where the nearby Icelandic volcanoes frequently give highly acid deposits at the summit. That causes in situ CO2 formation and more if the old method (now largely abandoned for CO2 measurements) of melting the sample under vacuum is applied at measuring time. With melting, CO2 levels even increased over time, the longer the test was done, as the reaction goes further and further…
Therefore the CO2 levels from the Greenland ice core aren’t used.
See e.g.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0889.47.issue4.6.x/abstract;jsessionid=AF91AE2541717EC6B3FEC4298102CC39.d03t02

May 11, 2013 9:07 am

Joel Heinrich says:
May 11, 2013 at 8:48 am
Yeah, that’s typical. Let some highly adjusted American station hit 400 ppm and the world goes crazy, but if some German site hits 570 ppm no one cares. As it did nearly 8 years ago…
The point is that station in the North of Germany is of not the slightest interest for “global” CO2 levels. Depending of wind and time of the day, you can measure any value between 200 and 600 ppmv. Simply because the measurements are too near sources and sinks and without much wind, not evenly mixed with the rest of the atmosphere. If you have tall towers, you will see that with height, the variability is reduced and above a few hundred meters, you will find “background” levels…

May 11, 2013 9:08 am

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

Alex Avery
May 11, 2013 9:14 am

sign me up for a tee, too!
Alex Avery

May 11, 2013 9:29 am

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

May 11, 2013 9:38 am

Myrrh says:
May 11, 2013 at 7:45 am
Myrrh, as I have repeatedly said, many of the data collected by the late Ernst Beck are completely worthless: the equivalent of measuring temperature mid winter in Siberia one day, months later on a hot asphalted roof on a hot summer day in Rome and some months later mid winter in Oslo and then concluding that there was a “global” peak in temperature.
Interesting are only the CO2 readings taken on seaships and coastal with wind from the oceans, which are all around the ice core values.
“Charles Keeling’s son continues to operate the Mauna Loa facility, and as Beck states “owns the monopoly of calibration of all CO2 measurements”. Since Keeling is a co-author of IPCC reports, the IPCC accepts that Mauna Lea is representative of global CO2 levels.”
The calibration gases are composed by NOAA (but Scripps still has their own calibrations) and tested in several labs over the world. “Global” CO2 levels are taken from different ground level stations, not including Mauna Loa…
Despite numerous 19th century air measurements showing +300 ppm CO2 levels, and despite the fact that many of the youngest ice cores showed higher than expected CO2 values and so were shifted forward 90-100 years from previously-established dates so that they would match the more elevated CO2 levels of 20th century air samples, the ice core record is today generally used to represent pre-1957 CO2 concentrations.
Please, stop that. Many of the old measurements were taken near huge sources and sinks and don’t represent global and not even local CO2 levels (as many were one or a few samples per day within extreme diurnal changes). When some of the early ice core drillings showes extreme values, they also showed contamination with drilling fluid, so not representative for “normal” CO2 levels in the ice core. And the “arbitrary shift” of ice core CO2 levels to match the Mauna Loa data is pure nonsense: there was no shift at all, but the late Jaworowski simply did read the wrong age column of the ice age, not the gas age. CO2 is measured in the bubbles, which in average are much younger than the surrounding ice.
And if you think that stomata data are any better than ice cores data (although stomata suffer from the same problems as the old chemical measurements: taken over land…), why is it that there is not the slightest hint of a peak in CO2 levels around 1942 in the stomata data (or in any other data series), where Beck’s main peak of 80 ppmv can be found?

noaaprogrammer
May 11, 2013 10:10 am

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

Myrrh
May 11, 2013 10:50 am

Ferdinand – There is no such critter as “well-mixed” global.
It’s all local and particular to the local conditions, which may include being brought in by winds because they have none much of their own, but all that means is carbon dioxide is being transported from A to B, the carbon dioxide such places get is from a different source. Our big wind systems do not cross hemispheres.
Keeling was the one claiing there was this mythical “well-mixed” background which he claimed could be measured from anywhere – so he could sit on top of the world’s biggest active volcano surrounded by volcanoes erupting and venting and thousands of earthquakes a year in warm seas over the great hot spot creating volcanic islands where he could choose how much or how little he included in his measurements.
Read how they measure. They first chuck out what they consider too high! They decide the year on year trend by cherry picking from the great volcanic output, which they don’t have a hope in hell of showing how much is man made in that, let alone in the mythical ‘background’ which he is picking up from local downwinds.
The claim is that this a pristine unpolluted by local carbon dioxide site, that they measure from some claimed carrying only “well-mixed background” high above it all trade wind – if that was the case they wouldn’t have to chuck out so much of their data..

May 11, 2013 11:17 am

Myrrh says:
May 11, 2013 at 10:50 am
Read how they measure. They first chuck out what they consider too high! They decide the year on year trend by cherry picking from the great volcanic output, which they don’t have a hope in hell of showing how much is man made in that, let alone in the mythical ‘background’ which he is picking up from local downwinds.
Please Myrrh, read what they really do at Mauna Loa:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
Nothing to do with cherry picking, but with throwing out the data which are clearly contaminated by downwind CO2 from volcanic vents and upwind depleted in CO2 from the valleys. All the data are still available and can be plotted for your convinience. It doesn’t matter if you include or exclude the contaminated data: the same yearly average and the same trend within 0.1 ppmv. Here are the data of four baseline stations (Barrow, Mauna Loa, Samoa and South Pole):
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/
They have the luxury to throw out the contaminated data, simply because they have so many measurements: over 8000 hourly averaged raw data + stdv a year, while the changes are less than 8 ppmv over the seasons as is the case at Mauna Loa (less than 2 ppmv at the South Pole). Even if they took one sample every two weeks (in triplo to avoid sampling errors) as happened a few years at the South Pole, that would be sufficient to see the seasonal curve and to calculate the yearly average and trend.
The Mauna Loa and many other stations (over 70 “background”) all show the same trends over the years, even if some (like the South Pole) have very few outliers:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends.jpg

May 11, 2013 11:20 am
May 11, 2013 12:15 pm

vukcevic says:
May 11, 2013 at 11:20 am
CO2 global distribution
Indeed, with a scale from 382-390 ppmv, +/- 1% of full scale, while the seasonal changes add and remove +/- 20% of all CO2 of the atmosphere within a few months in each direction. Seems pretty well mixed to me…

May 11, 2013 1:41 pm

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
Indeed, with a scale from 382-390 ppmv, +/- 1% of full scale, while the seasonal changes add and remove +/- 20% of all CO2 of the atmosphere within a few months in each direction. Seems pretty well mixed to me…
Agree, and that is a good reasons why the CO2 can’t be the reason for the North Hemisphere’s excess warming.
http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/GHCN-2011-SurfaceAnomaly_hr.jpg
It is the north. Atlantic that is the driver of the north Hemisphere’s temperature rise
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA-NV.htm
Sub-marine tectonics/seismicity is the future science of climate change.
Have a good think about it ….N. hemisphere is cooling already ….

May 11, 2013 1:46 pm

vukcevic says:
May 11, 2013 at 1:41 pm
Agree, and that is a good reasons why the CO2 can’t be the reason for the North Hemisphere’s excess warming.
Another reason why the climate models fail: about 90% of all human aerosol emissions are in the NH, thus most of the cooling effect of these aerosols should be in the Northern Hemisphere, but most of the warming (including the heat content of the oceans) is there…

Myrrh
May 11, 2013 2:05 pm

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
May 11, 2013 at 11:17 am
Myrrh says:
May 11, 2013 at 10:50 am
Read how they measure. They first chuck out what they consider too high! They decide the year on year trend by cherry picking from the great volcanic output, which they don’t have a hope in hell of showing how much is man made in that, let alone in the mythical ‘background’ which he is picking up from local downwinds.
Please Myrrh, read what they really do at Mauna Loa:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
Nothing to do with cherry picking, but with throwing out the data which are clearly contaminated by downwind CO2 from volcanic vents and upwind depleted in CO2 from the valleys.

Which is what I said, the claim is that this is a pristine site, poster child pristine site, high up away from all local carbon dioxide production and “measuring pristine uncontaminated well-mixed background”, but all they’re measuring is still the volcanic, they cherry pick at what point they pretend it isn’t volcanic and then claim it is this pristine coming in from the trade winds uncontaminated by local – that’s a logic disjunct.
This is a simple magicians trick.
You, generic, get caught up in the scientific sounding explanation of how they measure and chuck out “volcanic contamination”, and get distracted from the fact that their claim is there is no contamination by local production..
All the data are still available and can be plotted for your convinience. It doesn’t matter if you include or exclude the contaminated data: the same yearly average and the same trend within 0.1 ppmv. Here are the data of four baseline stations (Barrow, Mauna Loa, Samoa and South Pole):
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/

And why should I take any other measurements they make seriously? Keeling’s agenda was to show a rise, this is what he produced, by faking it. If he was really measuring pristine well mixed background coming in on trade wind uncontaminated by local production, they wouldn’t need to chuck anyone of it out. This isn’t science.
They have the luxury to throw out the contaminated data, simply because they have so many measurements:
They have the luxury to cherry pick out of all the huge volcanic production which can’t be told from man-made fossil fuel combustion.
They arbitrarily choose what they’ll call volcanic and what they’ll call “man made well mixed background”, and they don’t show any man made signature.
The Mauna Loa and many other stations (over 70 “background”) all show the same trends over the years, even if some (like the South Pole) have very few outliers:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends.jpg

Even after all the years Anthony’s blog has been recording all the temperature scams and much more, at the highest levels, like the Met finally admitting that there has been no temperature rise for 17 years while all that time it has lied and said the temps were catastrophically rising, you think because so many stations are involved that means they are independent?
First it was controlled by Keeling/Scripps and son, now it is globally co-ordinated at government level since it became lucrative/political. Whose agenda is the IPCC’s and that’s what we’ve got. The same ol’ same ol’ corruption of data here as we have with the temperature record and the constant fiddling with other records.
Here, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/jubany.html
Gosh, it’s the Keeling Curve based on data only from ’94..
Jubany is surrounded by volcanic activity ..
The Argentinians have been there since ’53 – where is their data?
And that magic moment of early 90’s when Salinger went to fake the NZ records and the IPCC changed the consensus conclusions of its contributing scientists which said in the ’95 report that no man made signature is discernible.
No man made signature is discernible so no trend rise possible to show and there is no “well-mixed background” anywhere, certainly not on top of the world’s biggest active volcano.
There’s just lots and lots of local environments producing or not and getting from outside or not, this could be averaged out if there was a true representative sample …, but even if that was possible that average would still not be “the well-mixed background” – when you read that an area gets 40 inches of rain a year you don’t think this means it gets 40 inches every day…, or in every part of that area.

May 11, 2013 2:10 pm

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

May 11, 2013 2:28 pm

I would love a T-shirt!

Edohiguma
May 11, 2013 2:46 pm

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

Lester Via
May 11, 2013 3:29 pm

It seems to me one problem with any cores taken from the antarctic ice cap is that the antarctic receives very little precipitation – less than a quarter inch equivalent rainfall annually. The process of trapping gas bubbles in the ice is dependent on the weight of snow above it rather than time. I would think this would temporally smear the the ice core CO2 data making it impossible to see fluctuations within some rather long time periods compared to Greenland ice cores where annual snowfall is much greater.
Additionally, I don’t think that it has been proven that the trapped bubbles are representative of the ancient composition of the atmosphere as the solubility of CO2 in water is radically different than is the solubility of nitrogen and oxygen. Any process that depletes CO2 relative to N2 and O2 during the conversion of firn to ice would also result in a hockey stick.

doug l
May 11, 2013 5:46 pm

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

Mike McMillan
May 11, 2013 6:12 pm

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

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

May 11, 2013 6:19 pm

Myrrh says “They arbitrarily choose what they’ll call volcanic and what they’ll call “man made well mixed background”, and they don’t show any man made signature.” and “First it was controlled by Keeling/Scripps and son, now it is globally co-ordinated at government level since it became lucrative/political.” and “Gosh, it’s the Keeling Curve based on data only from ’94.. Jubany is surrounded by volcanic activity ..”
Myrrh, please explain why hundreds of other independent measurements worldwide have the same results. For example, http://www.avvelenata.it/papers/Sendai_CO2.pdf where Lampedusa island in the Mediterranean is not near any volcanoes. After reading section 2, Measurements, please explain how ‘arbitrarily choose what they’ll call volcanic and what they’ll call “man made well mixed background” and arrive at much the same curve as Mauna Loa in figure 2 in the paper. I would like to know specifically how these scientists cherry picked readings to produce the curve shown in figure 2, i.e. how do they produce the rise and how do they produce the wiggle. Please do not answer with more junk websites, analyze this scientific paper or give links to scientific papers.

ThinAir
May 11, 2013 7:05 pm

Send a Tee and pass the CO2.

Tim Beatty
May 11, 2013 9:59 pm

Does 400ppm really just an indicator of a long winter and late spring?

May 11, 2013 11:48 pm

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
May 11, 2013 at 12:01 am
ferd berple says:
May 10, 2013 at 6:14 pm
Humans are part of nature.
Indeed, but the rest of nature is not burning coal, oil and gas buried millions of years ago in the same quantities as humans do…
===============
yet humans only emit less than 4% of the total CO2 emitted by nature. the other 96% is not emitted by humans.
humans are the flea on the back of the elephant wanting to believe they are the ones driving. we exist on this planet as guest of the algae that produce our oxygen. Only 10% of the cells in the human body have human DNA. The other 90% – the ones that aren’t human – they are what keep us alive.
So next time you look in the mirror keep i mind that 90% of you is not human. It is alien DNA and for all intents and purposes, it is the host. Our 10% of the total is the parasite that lives off this host. Or at best, we are a symbiot. Like algae.

Mervyn
May 11, 2013 11:54 pm

You know when global warming alarmists are just propagandists … because they only talk in ways that demonise Co2… carbon pollution is the catch-cry! They forget earth is actually inhabited by numerous “carbon-based life forms”.
These propagandists never talk about the numerous positive effects and benefits from having more Co2 in the atmosphere. If they did, they’d find they don’t have a leg to stand on.

May 12, 2013 1:00 am

vukcevic says:
May 11, 2013 at 2:10 pm
Now you say :
CO2 emitted in the N. Hemisphere is globally well mixed.
Aerosols emitted in the N. Hemisphere globally are not well mixed, they stay there, hmmm … what happened to the CFCs and ozone hole in the Antarctic.

CO2 is well mixed, aerosols are not. Only small amounts of CO2 are soluble in fresh water/cloud drops, but most of the human (tropospheric) SO2 is washed out (dry and wet deposit) in only a few days. The ITCZ with its heavy rains and poleward circulation hinders the exchange of air masses (about 10% per year exchange) between the hemispheres and near completely washes out all aerosols. That is the difference between CO2 (and CFC’s, etc…) and aerosols.
Here the heat content of the NH vs. the SH, after correction for area differences (not area weighted, but based on total area difference), based on the Levitus data:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/Wrld_700_m_corr.gif
Of course, one need to take into account the different ocean currents, which bring heat from the equator to the poles, as is the case for the North Atlantic, but in the Pacific the flow is opposite and the heat content increased there as well, compared to the SH Pacific.
Thus the models are wrong again: the “huge” effect of cooling aerosols, as implemented in current climate models should be visible mainly in the NH, but the opposite happened…
What will happen in the future with a lower solar strength will be very interesting…

May 12, 2013 1:14 am

Myrrh says:
May 11, 2013 at 2:05 pm
Myrrh, as eric1skeptic sayd, look at any station where no volcano or vegetation is in the wide neighbourhood and you will find exactly the same curve, only with a small lag between the NH and the SH and different seasonal swings. The South Pole measurements were taken even before Mauna Loa, but lack a few years of continuous measurements, but these were infilled with regular flask samples. There is no volcano and no vegetation for thousands of kms…
If you really think that someone is manipulating all the data of all stations all over the world with an increase of 0.005 ppmv per day, then you should show me how it is possible to do that and without protest of anyone of the hundreds of people involved, even not after retirement…
Worldwide CO2 levels are the most reliable and rigorously controlled measurements I know of. One can only hope that one day temperature stations are as firmly quality controlled as the CO2 measurements are.

May 12, 2013 1:28 am

ferd berple says:
May 11, 2013 at 11:48 pm
yet humans only emit less than 4% of the total CO2 emitted by nature. the other 96% is not emitted by humans.
That is a non-argument: you forget the other side of the equation: 100% of the sinks are natural and 0% of the sinks are human (the few reforestations are negligible compared to deforestation).
In reality the full equation of the mass balance is:
4% human emissions + 96% natural emissions = 98% sinks + 2% increase in the atmosphere.
Thus the net addition by all natural flows together = -2%. Nature is a net sink, not a net source.
Taking your human body example: if you need 2000 kcal/day and eat 2000 kcal a day, everything is in balance. Now you start to eat an extra 40 kcal a day, every day, that is only 5% of your daily intake. What will happen to your body weight after a year or so (own experience from the past..)?

May 12, 2013 2:12 am

Lester Via says:
May 11, 2013 at 3:29 pm
It seems to me one problem with any cores taken from the antarctic ice cap is that the antarctic receives very little precipitation
Depends where the ice core is taken. The near coast ice cores like Law Dome receive 1.2 meters ice equivalent per year as snow. The bubbles are fully closed after some 40 years at 72 meter depth. In that period, most of the time, the pores are in open connection with the atmosphere which makes that the average age of the enclosed air is in average about 7 years older that in the atmosphere. The average resolution of these cores is less than a decade. The drawback is that these cores only go some 150 years back in time before reaching bedrock.
The far inland cores receive far less precipitation and their resolution increases to 600 years (Vostok) and 560 years (Dome C). But they go 420 and 800 kyr back in time.
Additionally, I don’t think that it has been proven that the trapped bubbles are representative of the ancient composition of the atmosphere as the solubility of CO2 in water is radically different than is the solubility of nitrogen and oxygen. Any process that depletes CO2 relative to N2 and O2 during the conversion of firn to ice would also result in a hockey stick.
There is an overlap of ~20 years between the Law Dome ice cores and direct measurements at the South Pole: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_sp_co2.jpg
There is some fractionation of the heavier molecules and isotopes, which increase near the bottom of the stagnant air in the firn (CO2: ~1% over 40 years), for which is corrected for.
And the smaller molecules (neon, O2) show a small deficit: they seem to escape just before bubble closing. CO2 seems too large to be influenced.
Measurements of CO2 nowadays are done by crushing the cold ice under vacuum and trapping any water vapour over a cold trap. Alternative, used to measure isotopic compositions, is sublimating all ice just under melting point, freezing everyting over cryogenic traps and measuring all components by cryogenic destillation. Both methods give similar results. So, water is no problem at all.
There is some very low migration of CO2 in ice cores over long periods, as is (theoretically) calculated from the Siple Dome ice core where some remelt layers were found. That implied that the resolution broadened from 20 to 22 years at medium depth and to 40 years at full depth (~40 kyr back in time). Not a big deal for “warm” coastal ice cores (-22°C). For the much colder inland ice cores (-40°C) like Vorstok and Dome C, that plays no measurable role, not even after 800 kyr…
More information at:
http://courses.washington.edu/proxies/GHG.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8343.full
http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3773250
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/closeoff_EPSL.pdf

May 12, 2013 2:22 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
May 12, 2013 at 1:28 am
that is only 5% of your daily intake
Of course, 40 kcal is 2% of 2000 kcal. There was a time, long ago, that I could perform such calculations error free without calculator/computer…

Myrrh
May 12, 2013 2:59 am

eric1skeptic says:
May 11, 2013 at 6:19 pm
Myrrh says “They arbitrarily choose what they’ll call volcanic and what they’ll call “man made well mixed background”, and they don’t show any man made signature.” and “First it was controlled by Keeling/Scripps and son, now it is globally co-ordinated at government level since it became lucrative/political.” and “Gosh, it’s the Keeling Curve based on data only from ’94.. Jubany is surrounded by volcanic activity ..”
Myrrh, please explain why hundreds of other independent measurements worldwide have the same results. For example, http://www.avvelenata.it/papers/Sendai_CO2.pdf where Lampedusa island in the Mediterranean is not near any volcanoes. After reading section 2, Measurements, please explain how ‘arbitrarily choose what they’ll call volcanic and what they’ll call “man made well mixed background” and arrive at much the same curve as Mauna Loa in figure 2 in the paper. I would like to know specifically how these scientists cherry picked readings to produce the curve shown in figure 2, i.e. how do they produce the rise and how do they produce the wiggle. Please do not answer with more junk websites, analyze this scientific paper or give links to scientific papers.
Erik1skeptic – these are two different scenarios, two completely different locations. Mauna Loa is the poster child for the official AGW scare of global warming, there is a history of how it got to be that. By the 90’s it had been taken over by bigger guns than the personal agenda of Keeling and family loyalty, there was a co-ordinated orchestrated plan put into effect which included changing the consensus conclusion of the scientists working on the ’95 IPPC report – their considered opinion was that there was no discernible man made signal, but, the IPPC was created to push the meme that “man made cause of global warming” existed, read the small print. The majority of the scientists brought in by the IPCC didn’t understand that, they thought they were doing work for a real science body with UN ‘kudos’ and taking the question seriously, was made man made responsible?, concluded that no man made signal discernible – find your own damn links to exactly what was taken out. This was deliberately excised by Hougton/Santer and a quickly cobbled together non-peer reviewed garbled nonsense put in to justify the excising of the pukkha science consensus conclusion. Real scientists have resigned from the IPCC when they saw their work was being trashed. This is a fact of history in this now over a century of real science mixed with personal agendas, which is what I am exploring.
Now, I have shown enough from my own analysis of Mauna Loa, the sleight of hand trickery which it practices, to prove conclusively for myself that the consensus of the real scientists writing the ’95 IPPC report was correct in one aspect of “no man made signal discernible”. I concluded that the first time I read the Mauna Loa description of method and smelled a rat – I spent some time looking at the wind systems and the local abundant carbon dioxide production and saw that their method was merely arbitrarily choosing cut off points for what they then labelled “local volcanic pollution” and what they labelled “pristine well mixed background brought in by the trade winds unadulterated by local production” which measurement of “pristine well mixed background” wasn’t physically possible from the top of an active volcano surrounded by great volcanic production, other active volcanoes, venting, thousands of earthquakes a year in warm seas over a huge hot spot creating volcanic islands, even if such a critter as “well-mixed background carbon dioxide” existed.
You decide for yourself whether it’s possible or not.. I then began exploring the background history of the Keeling connection and found Timothy Casey’s piece, here’s the link again: http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
Not only as I’d previously concluded from looking at the properties and processes of carbon dioxide is there no such critter as “well-mixed background” so they couldn’t be measuring this at Mauna Loa or anywhere else contrary to Keelings unproven claim that it existed and could be measured from anywhere in the world, but there was skullduggery afoot with the claims that a fossil fuel combustion signal was discernible among volcanic production, it isn’t, not without specific fingerprinting to each individual volcanic source and the volcanic sources themselves had been excised from the cursory glance, and, this affected the measurements of other stations claimed to be “pristine” spots for measuring the unproven mythical Keeling “pristine background well mixed carbon dioxide”.
And as you gave me Jubany as one such “pristine” site I found that it too is surounded by active volcanic production. And, I pointed out that its depiction graph was not only impossible from the data collected which began in 94, but was the Keeling Curve which at cursory glance a) gave the impression it was from data collected by this team but also b) that it included the Argentianian collection data and they had been there from 1953, they didn’t give any of it while giving the impression it was included in the graph; which was the Keeling Curve and nothing to do with Italian data they gave or the Argentianian they didn’t.
So, you then gave me Lampadusa: http://www.avvelenata.it/papers/Sendai_CO2.pdf
Which again was set up in the early 90’s as had been Jubany, so it is reasonable to assume for the same reasons and by the same agenda as those who are now in control of the global narrative, who have been shown doctoring the conclusion of the 95 IPCC report, which organisation, look it up for yourself, had itself been set up to show that man made influence was “causing the rise in carbon dioxide” (and therefore to blame for “rise in temperatures”).
That does not mean that the team at Lampadusa, or Jubany, are producing anything but accurate measurements of what they are finding. But what are they finding? At Jubany it is clear they would have to take into account the surrounding volcanic activity, if they themselves were making the claim that their measurements were of this mythical unproven “pristine uncontaminated by local production well-mixed background carbon dioxide”, as did Keeling and continued from via Scripps before being taken over by the IPPC agenda drivers. I haven’t seen that the team at Jubany have made such a claim and so reasonably assume they are just doing the measurements and their work is presented as such by the now co-ordinating body as their page comes from who produced the trickery of showing the Keeling Curve as if attached to their measurements and who have not shown any previous data from the Argentinians. So, I am not questioning the accuracy of the Lampadusa team’s measurements, but looking at what they have found.
What I have found is they themselves have said where their carbon dioxide comes from, in the winds. The island itself is barren and though I haven’t checked to see if there is any underwater volcanic activity which as Casey points out has not only been deliberately ignored, but positively claimed is accounted for in the science fraud trickery of underestimation, it is clear from their work that the El Nino brought in an extra amount to what they were finding. I haven’t had the time to explore this in any greater depth. You asked me what I thought and I pointed this out because of the AIRS conclusion that they would have to study wind systems in the transportation of carbon dioxide.
I also pointed out that they mentioned the added flask at 2metres in ’97, which in true science tradition they were duty bound to mention so they did, which has to be taken into account in their analysis of “rise”. Anyway, without going further into exploring if there is any volcanic contribution to their figures, so going with their own analysis that the carbon dioxide they measure for all practical purposes comes in on the winds, I made the point, perhaps not clearly enough, [that they appeared to understand and so were saying], that the carbon dioxide they were measuring was coming from discrete sources, that they were not measuring “well mixed background”, but carbon dioxide being carried to them within the volumes of winds. As I had pointed out to you in the other study you brought into the discussion, that the local climate of one of the stations was stated to be affected by the winds coming from the Atlantic 80 ks distant.
Real scientists point out such things, real science knows that the wind doesn’t “ceaselessly turbulently mix up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to create well-mixed background which is the same everywhere around the globe”, not least because it knows winds don’t cross hemispheres.., we don’t have “the same well mixed temperature around the globe”…, but knows carbon dioxide is carried in the winds themselves from one place to another, because it knows that winds are volumes of the real fluid gas air on the move created out of differential heating of volumes of air. [We were discussing this here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/05/tastes-great-less-incinerating/ ]
So, what they are saying at Lampadusa, is that if you want to know where their carbon dioxide comes from you have to look to the source which is the winds carrying it in as they say is clearly shown in the spike of 97/98 El Niño.
Wiggles are produced by natural variation, as we saw in the winter and summer differences of the US study. If there really was such a critter as the claimed “well-mixed background of carbon dioxide that can be measured anywhere” and “these stations in pristine unpolluted by local production show it”, there wouldn’t be any wiggles. Like the elaborate sciency sounding descriptions of the collection method at Mauna Loa, the seasonal variation wiggles distract from closer scrutiny of that claim.
The “well-mixed everywhere in the same proportion and accumulating for hundreds and thousands of years” is what got me interested in exploring all this, because their AGW explanations of why it was this were just so bizarre and contrary to the properties and processes of real world gases, and, I was being given this information by a PhD in physics who was teaching about gases at university level..
This fake fisics has been deliberately introduced into the education system, hence all the confusion in these arguments in the mix of people who still have traditional physics in their field, but may or may not know the basics from another field, arguing with AGW fisics which has completely altered the physical composition of the world around us. Only a week or so ago I came across a high school page which said that ‘real gases are different from the ideal but too complicated at this level so ideal better to explain the principles, and even not necessary at university level’ – the difference in gases used to be taught at junior school level, the first thing taught was they would separate out by weight under gravity, carbon dioxide and methane as heavier and lighter than air given as examples.. That’s how determined the interests which took this over in the 70’s, they began by teaching would be unspecialised teachers of juniors garbled fisics and silly proofs to demonstrate, a bottle of scent opened in the classroom and ink poured into water, and by the time these kids got to be PhD’s teaching at university level they believed without question that carbon dioxide and nitrogen and oxygen were ideal gases and would spontaneously diffuse into the atmosphere under their own molecular momentum to at great speeds miles apart from each other in empty space bouncing of each other in elastic collisions and so thoroughly mixing that it would take a great deal of work to separate them out again, like separating out again ink from the water it had been mixed in with..

May 12, 2013 5:03 am

Myrrh says:
May 12, 2013 at 2:59 am
Myrrh, you are hopeless. One can select the Mauna Loa data in such a way that they only use the highest values when the winds blow from the volcanic vents. That would give you an increase of 4 ppmv over the average. The average trend is an increase of ~2 ppmv per year. Thus after only 3 years the trend is already beyond any selection of volcanic enhanced data. We are currently 70+ ppmv over the measurements of 1959. How can that be reached by data selection?
And how can the South Pole data be manipulated, where hardly any outliers are found? See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_mlo_spo_raw_select_2008.jpg
Further, I obtained my B.Sc. in chemistry begin 1960’s. I was teached that CO2 was a non-ideal gas. But that doesn’t change the fact that CO2 is well mixed within 2% of full scale in 95% of the atmosphere.
I have been working in a chlorine factory, once helping to develope a computer model to predict the behaviour of a chlorine leak with wind speed, direction and obstacles in the wind direction. In general, the dilution of such a leak is between the second and third power of the distance, as well in width as in height. Chlorine is 60% heavier than CO2. Despite that, it does mix with air and stays there, once mixed.
And as said before: in a 70 meter column of stagnant air (in firn), CO2 is enriched with about 1% at the bottom of the column after 40 years time. Thus how could CO2 separate from the atmosphere when winds, convection, turbulence mix everything everywhere during the same 40 years?

May 12, 2013 5:09 am

Myrrh,
Where can I find this opinion about CO2 levels?
their considered opinion was that there was no discernible man made signal

Philip Mulholland
May 12, 2013 6:41 am

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

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

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

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

May 12, 2013 7:45 am

Philip Mulholland says:
May 12, 2013 at 6:41 am
My take on Fred’s conclusion “It’s the Arctic Ocean not the Boreal Tiaga wot dunnit”
Except that Fred’s conclusion doesn’t fit with the simultaneous increase in 13C/12C ratio in the NH. That is from the preferential use of 12CO2 by plants leaving relative more 13CO2 in the atmosphere…
Most of the change BTW is in the mid-latitudes, but the Ferrell cell brings the depleted air masses to near the poles.

gymnosperm
May 12, 2013 8:22 am

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

Myrrh
May 12, 2013 9:30 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
May 12, 2013 at 5:03 am
Myrrh says:
May 12, 2013 at 2:59 am
Myrrh, you are hopeless. One can select the Mauna Loa data in such a way that they only use the highest values when the winds blow from the volcanic vents. That would give you an increase of 4 ppmv over the average. The average trend is an increase of ~2 ppmv per year. Thus after only 3 years the trend is already beyond any selection of volcanic enhanced data. We are currently 70+ ppmv over the measurements of 1959. How can that be reached by data selection?
Ferdinand, you are missing my point. I am trying to explain the sleight of hand magician’s trick here, initiated by Keeling and continued as the bank wagon acquired different drivers.
You are being distracted by the data and the sciency explanations from the claim they make which began with Keeling – “that carbon dioxide is a well-mixed gas in the atmosphere and the pristine background can be measured from anywhere”, and, specifically here, that “Mauna Loa is a pristine site for measuring this as it is uncontaminated by local production because it is high on the mountain top without vegetation around it measuring uncontaminated well-mixed background coming in high above all local contamination”.
If that were true, they would not have to chuck any of their data out..
What they are measuring is for the most part local volcanic carbon dioxide, even when they have arbitrarily decided what amount to call volcanic and what amount to call their claimed “uncontaminated background coming in high over Hawaii in the trade wind”, it’s all the same, they cannot separate out local.
And how can the South Pole data be manipulated, where hardly any outliers are found? See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_mlo_spo_raw_select_2008.jpg

Sorry Ferdinand, I really don’t have time to go into every example, I have explained the skullduggery involved here and it’s for you to tell me how all these places, how all these places, sing from the same hymn sheet to the extent that they they are so sure that none will examine what they are saying, they even blatantly and cynically give the Keeling Curve graph as if it directly relates to the data gathered at Jubany..
Further, I obtained my B.Sc. in chemistry begin 1960′s. I was teached that CO2 was a non-ideal gas. But that doesn’t change the fact that CO2 is well mixed within 2% of full scale in 95% of the atmosphere.
As long as you think that carbon dioxide is “well mixed in the atmosphere”, which you clearly do.., then you will keep missing the points I’m making. Your only ‘proof’ that carbon dioxide is “well-mixed” is the data of the stations, which I have gone to some considerable effort to show is not reliable for a variety of reasons.., and you explain it by some mangled sciency sounding stuff which you have picked up along the way and so are apparently deaf to any explanations I give of the real properties and processes of carbon dioxide, like, its 8-10 DAY residence time in the atmosphere in the Water Cycle, which Water Cycle is non-existant in the AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect, like winds DO NOT CROSS HEMISPHERES, etc.
That you have decided carbon dioxide is “well mixed in the atmosphere after 40 years” is as unreasonable as the claims made by AGWSF that “carbon dioxide stays well-mixed in atmosphere accumulating for hundreds and even thousands of years because it is an ideal gas.” Carbon dioxide is moving up and moving down in convection and in the winds, when they stop and in the rain.
I have been working in a chlorine factory, once helping to develope a computer model to predict the behaviour of a chlorine leak with wind speed, direction and obstacles in the wind direction. In general, the dilution of such a leak is between the second and third power of the distance, as well in width as in height. Chlorine is 60% heavier than CO2. Despite that, it does mix with air and stays there, once mixed.
Hmm, we’ve have excellent reports here on WUWT about the gigo of the computer models used by “climate scientists”..
Instead here’s an example from real life and traditional physics which has to really understand the properties and processes of chlorine gas:
http://rense.com/general61/SCtraincrashkills8.htm
“A team from the National Transportation Safety Board arrived to investigate, and the Federal Railroad Administration said it was sending a 9-member team to assist the safety board investigators.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01
/07/national/07derail.html
ProMED-mail
promed@promedmail.org
“Chlorine gas is moderately soluble in water. It reacts with the moisture in the respiratory system to result in irritation of the respiratory system, the eyes, the nose, and almost any other mucus membrane. The irritation is prolonged in moist conditions. Chlorine may combine with the water to form hypochlorous and hydrochloric acid, which are intensely irritating.
“Chlorine gas is greenish-yellow and generally heavier than air, so it stays near the ground; without a wind, or in damp conditions, it is not immediately dissipated.”
Patricia A. Doyle, PhD
So, like real carbon dioxide heavier than air will sink and attracted to water in the atmosphere will come down in the rain, not like AGWSF’s imaginary ideal gases without mass and therefore no movement from relative weight because not subject to gravity and with no attraction therefore incapable of joining with water in the atmosphere…
“And as said before: in a 70 meter column of stagnant air (in firn), CO2 is enriched with about 1% at the bottom of the column after 40 years time. Thus how could CO2 separate from the atmosphere when winds, convection, turbulence mix everything everywhere during the same 40 years?
I have tried to explain that real gases have volume, weight, attraction and subject to gravity are the winds, winds aren’t something stirring up the atmosphere, but are parts of the atmosphere on the move. Winds are volumes of air on the move created by the differential heating of volumes of air, real gases expand when heated and so become less dense under gravity and so lighter than air they rise creating an area of low pressure, and as they rise they take away heat from the surface of the Earth into the colder heights where they give up their heat. In doing so they become colder and so condense, thus becoming more dense under gravity they create areas of cold high pressure and heavier than air will sink displacing air and flow into areas of low pressure: high because heavier, low because lighter – I’ve only just thought of that, it’s a good way to remember it – the mnemonics from meteorology are “hot air rises, cold air sinks” and “winds flow from high to low”. Now you know why..
This should make sense if you understand real gases under gravity which have volume and which can expand and condense and do so when heated or cooled, and, because they have mass have weight which means they can separate out from the mass volume of air of our atmosphere even at the same temperature when they are heavier or lighter than air, like carbon dioxide and chlorine heavier than air, more dense under gravity, will sink, and methane and water vapour lighter than air, less dense under gravity, will rise..
This is what convection means, and winds are convection currents. Volumes of fluid gas on the move. They flow from high to low and from hotter to colder, 2nd law, spontaneously, just like water always flows downhill, it takes work to change that. So, our main winds are created by the intense heating of land and water at the equator, from where they rise and flow to the cold poles, where they cool and sink and flow back to the equator, they do not cross hemispheres but stick to their own. Add in the spin of the Earth for the actual patterns created. See a good meteorological site…
Winds are also local and It is not always windy… Again Ferdinand, I am looking out of my window and this time there is a breeze, a light breeze and moving not just the tops of the trees I can see in my garden but gently moving the lower branches. When the wind stops whatever carbon dioxide is in that volume will begin sinking because heavier than air, it will come to the ground where the plants are waiting for it.. On a day like this I should light a small bonfire to distribute more carbon dioxide around my garden, as they up the levels in real greenhouses in the real world which works from traditional physics, which knows that visible light converts to chemical energy, sugars, not heat, and designs their lamps for photosynthesis accordingly..
This is a living dynamic Cycle, the Carbon Life Cycle, which includes the Water Cycle – AGWSF doesn’t have any of this. It can’t get winds or rain from its propertyless, processless, massless, non-existant ideal gas world – it can’t even create an atmosphere, but goes straight from the surface to empty space. So there is no sound in their world.
This difference has to be understood as these arguments are very much confused by the mix of traditional terms misused. The AGW world is physically impossible, they are climate scientists without any climate.
I hope you can hear what I’m saying.

May 12, 2013 10:50 am

Myrrh says:
May 12, 2013 at 9:30 am
I give up. I have tried a lot of explanations what happens with CO2 in the atmosphere. But if you don’t accept any data that contradict your believe in conspiracies by every person involved in CO2 measurements, then no further discussion is possible.
About chlorine:
Chlorine gas is greenish-yellow and generally heavier than air, so it stays near the ground; without a wind, or in damp conditions, it is not immediately dissipated.
The main point is at the end: without wind it is not immediately dissipated. If there is wind, it is readily dissipated, including higher in the atmosphere, despite that it is much heavier than air. But even so the concentrations in the immediate vicinity of a huge leak (as is a 30-ton leaking wagon) still may be lethal.
BTW, the dispersion model was tested with small amounts of chlorine with different wind conditions to test the monitors around the factory, to our satisfaction…

May 12, 2013 11:00 am

gymnosperm says:
May 12, 2013 at 8:22 am
Keep always in mind that the human contribution is only about 5% of an enormous natural flux moving in many directions. It is pretty meaningless to argue that this 12C is ours and that 13C is not. How would we know who’s 12C it is? Who cares? It mixes very well and it is obviously increasing. We toss our 5% skewed to 12 into the machine and watch it hum. We measure the result and 12 is increasing. That’s all we know.
Not so difficult to know where the extra 12C is coming from: There are no other sources of 13C depleted CO2, except land plants decay. But the oxygen balance shows that land plants are currently more sink than source: the “greening earth”. All other natural sources (oceans, volcanoes, carbonate rock weathering,…) are higher in 13C/12C ratio than the atmosphere.
But there is a firm decrease of the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere and in the oceans surface layer, in lockstep with human emissions:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif

Jimbo
May 12, 2013 5:24 pm

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

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

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

I did. I have been banned from the Guardian……..over 8 times. 🙁
I’ glad you also noticed the new banning policy over at the Guardian. CIF is now an echo chamber, I gave up in the end.

May 12, 2013 7:41 pm

Myrrh said: So, what they are saying at Lampadusa, is that if you want to know where their carbon dioxide comes from you have to look to the source which is the winds carrying it in as they say is clearly shown in the spike of 97/98 El Niño….Wiggles are produced by natural variation, as we saw in the winter and summer differences of the US study. If there really was such a critter as the claimed “well-mixed background of carbon dioxide that can be measured anywhere” and “these stations in pristine unpolluted by local production show it”, there wouldn’t be any wiggles. Like the elaborate sciency sounding descriptions of the collection method at Mauna Loa, the seasonal variation wiggles distract from closer scrutiny of that claim.
Myrh, should the annual plant cycle have no effect then? The problem with your “wouldn’t be any wiggles if well-mixed” theory is doesn’t jive with the evidence. The early spring minimum in the NH coincides with minimum NH vegetation and it doesn’t show up nearly as much in the SH which can’t counteract it having a lot less land. Also the earth’s annual temperature wiggle matches up with the CO2 wiggle since earth is at perihelion (closer to the sun) in the NH winter (SH summer). The closeness to the sun produces a warmer global average temperature which produces a greater amount of CO2 in NH winter / early spring. The Italian study (Lampedusa) concluded that there was a strong correlation between global temperature and CO2 with a 3 month lag.
So there should be a wiggle from those two overlapping causes. If CO2 is well mixed there should be a matching (by date, not amplitude) wiggle most locations. The match is not perfect so mixing is not either. The origin of the sampled air at Lampedusa caused 4-5 ppm variation according to their text. But that is exceeded by the amplitude of the wiggle (10 ppm) and the amount of the rise. So cherry picking measurements using variations of that amplitude cannot explain the wiggle or the rise.

Myrrh
May 13, 2013 1:12 am

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
May 12, 2013 at 5:03 am
Myrrh says:
May 12, 2013 at 2:59 am
Myrrh, you are hopeless. One can select the Mauna Loa data in such a way that they only use the highest values when the winds blow from the volcanic vents. That would give you an increase of 4 ppmv over the average. The average trend is an increase of ~2 ppmv per year. Thus after only 3 years the trend is already beyond any selection of volcanic enhanced data. We are currently 70+ ppmv over the measurements of 1959. How can that be reached by data selection?
Ferdinand have you ever tried looking for the amounts of carbon dioxide coming from the volcanic activity in Hawaii?
Here: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/activity/methods/gas/plumes.php
Measuring volcanic gases: emission rates
of sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide in volcanic plumes
See if you can find the data for Carbon Dioxide – I can’t, all links go to SO2 pages or page not available.
To confusion carbon dioxide is often given in percentage terms, http://www.ivhhn.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84#Volcanic Examples and Incidents
“Due to the high levels of CO2 required to cause harm, concentrations of CO2 are often expressed as a percentage of the gas in air by volume (1% = 10,000 ppmv). This is in contrast to other volcanic gases.”
Bearing that in mind: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
“Examples of volcanic gas compositions, in volume percent concentrations
(from Symonds et. al., 1994)
Volcano
Kilauea Summit
Tectonic Style
Hot Spot
Temperature
1170°C
H20 37.1
C02 48.9
S02 11.8
Half is carbon dioxide, 50×10000=?
I’ve tried http://www.hawaiiso2network.com/ which appears to give links to CO2..
I’ve tried http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/webcams/parks/havoso2alert/havoaddlinfo.cfm#VolGas
And I’ve tried others. Please would you find me actual figures for carbon dioxide from all the volcanic activity on Hawaii, this has been monitored for a great number of years, it should be somewhere and you may have access to or know of accurate sources for this information. I just don’t find your 4ppm credible..
p.s. the IPPC change you requested, I’ve got bookmarked Monckton/Santer here: http://larouchepac.com/node/12823
Sorry, haven’t had time to get you the actual changes, I’ll have a look for it today.

Myrrh
May 13, 2013 1:26 am

eric1skeptic says:
May 12, 2013 at 7:41 pm
My point is that the claim specifically says that carbon dioxide is rapidly and thoroughly mixed and can’t be unmixed and this is the same all over the globe and this background measurement is what is being measured and it is free of any local/seasonal variations because it mixes rapidly and thorougly. The claim is that high on top of the world’s largest active volcano surrounded by tons of volcanic activity from many nearby volcanoes also erupting, venting, earthquaking, above and below sea which is warm, and hot land so hot gases rise, there is no way that Mauna Loa is not measuring this coming down from its so call “pristine high above it all” station, and calling it non-volcanic is sleight of hand.

May 13, 2013 1:46 am

sorry – but the 400ppm line does not seem to have been crossed yet , according to the official data of the Keeling Scripps and also NOAA
– I’ve been following the official tweets from Keeling
399.73 Thu 9th, 399.40 Fri 10th, 399.46 Sat 11th
On The 10th th- The BBC quoted the NOAA as above 400 on Thursday which uses the same instruments but something like a different time zone so it’s 24 hours don’t match up with the Keelings
– yet when I check the NOAA websites stats never went above 400 either !
Last 5 days of daily average CO2
May 11 – 399.46 May 10 – 399.28 May 09 – 399.89 May 08 – 399.42 May 07 – 399.59
– I got there from this tweet
NOAA Research ‏@NOAAResearch 10 May
Here’s your daily update from @NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory. May 9 average was 400.03 ppm. http://go.usa.gov/TwNP #climate
– The tweet says the daily reading was above 400
so can someone explain why their own website shows the 400ppm line for daily readings has not been crossed.
BTW I see Weatheraction are arguing it’s all a load of garbage anyway cos there have often been spurts over 400ppm, but this doesn’t show up in the ice core record due to an averaging effect as CO2 spreads across the ice core samples over time. http://twitpic.com/cq8agr/full

Myrrh
May 13, 2013 4:40 am

Ferdinand – re IPCC 1995 report, some here:
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Social/IPCC-Santer.htm
“Santer also deleted these key statements from the expert-approved chapter 8 draft:
“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
“While some of the pattern-base studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed] to [man-made] causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data – an issue of primary relevance to policy makers.”
“Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
“While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”
“When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, `We do not know. “‘
Santer single-handedly reversed the “climate science” of the whole IPCC report–and with it the global warming political process. The “discernible human influence” supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world and has been the “stopper” in millions of debates among nonscientists.”
&
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Social/IPCC-95-Ch8.htm
“Section 8.3.3.3
deleted: “While such studies help to build confidence in the reliability of the model variability on interannual to decadal time scales, there are still serious concerns about the longer time scale variability, which is more difficult to validate (Barnett et al., 1995). Unless paleoclimatic data can help us to ‘constrain’ the century time scale natural variability estimates obtained from CGCMs, it will be difficult to make a convincing case for the detection and attribution of an anthropogenic climate change signal.”
Section 8.4.1
deleted : “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution-related conclusions, for which there is little justification.””
Ferdinand, there is no manmade discernible, not even considered in any studies..
—————————
stewgreen says:
May 13, 2013 at 1:46 am
Someone else who understands what arbitrarily means..: http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/01/12/ice-core-bubbles-and-carbon-dioxide/
“After the bubbles are encased in solid ice, it was assumed that the relative amount of gases in the bubble could not change, but that is an unwarranted assumption. It has been shown that super-cooled water exists in the bubbles even at very low temperatures. This super-cooled water preferentially dissolves carbon dioxide compared to nitrogen, oxygen, and argon, leaving the gas component depleted in carbon dioxide. Also, at high pressure and low temperature, carbon dioxide is further sequestered in gas hydrates. The very act of drilling to collect ice cores decompresses the ice, and some of the gas hydrates decompose allowing carbon dioxide to escape into the drilling fluid thereby giving uncertain readings. For instance, Neftel et al. (1982) found gas bubbles with carbon dioxide ranging from 237ppmv to 436ppmv from a Greenland core and values of 257ppmv to 417ppmv from an Antarctica core. (They arbitrarily choose the lower values to represent the “true” reading.)”
This area is full of cherry picking, and hidden data..

May 13, 2013 5:55 am

Myrrh says:
May 13, 2013 at 1:12 am
As I expected already, your quote of the IPCC was about the influence of humans on climate change, adn have nothing to do with the influence of humans on the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere:
Ben Santer… …admitted last night on Jesse Ventura’s Conspiracy Theory national TV show, that he had deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change.
About volcanic gases: if CO2 reaches the station at Mauna Loa, it gives a lot more variability within an hour than where there is “background” (trade winds) air reaching the stations. If there is a volcanic component, that is also measured as elevated SO2 (and other tracers). These figures, together with wind speed, direction and distance were used to calculate the CO2 emissions from the different upslope volcanic vents. Indeed by a diffusion model, but validated by local measurements at the vents themselves. I don’t find back the study involved, but here some background:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/programs/esrl/volcanicco2/volcanicco2.html
The following criteria are used at MLO for detection of CO2 from volcanic vents:
Criteria: CO2 SD 1.0 ppm; wind direction sector 135°-225°; wind speed 1.35 m s-1.
In 1994 there were 24 hours influenced by volcanic vents, in 1995, 9 hours.
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/www.cmdl.noaa.gov/publications/annrpt23/chapter1_1.htm

May 13, 2013 6:05 am

Myrrh said “this background measurement is what is being measured and it is free of any local/seasonal variations because it mixes rapidly and thorougly”
The claim is that mixing spreads the seasonal wiggle from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere. In the NH the measured wiggle is 10ppm or more. In Antarctica the measured wiggle is only a few ppm. Obviously mixing is not that thorough, but it is rapid enough to see the same wiggle without lag.
The specific claim which you seem to be refuting is that the wiggle is a worldwide result of the northern hemisphere’s vegetative cycle. That there really is a measured worldwide wiggle and that it is a result of vegetative growth and dieback. Another contributing factor is perihelion in January of each year which raises the global average temperature (a degree or two C IIRC) and that helps create the peak in April (there are a few months of lag).
Myrrh said “The claim is that high on top of the world’s largest active volcano surrounded by tons of volcanic activity from many nearby volcanoes also erupting, venting, …”
The claim is that the same rise and wiggle is measured worldwide. Above you said, re Lampedusa measurements: “That does not mean that the team at Lampadusa, or Jubany, are producing anything but accurate measurements of what they are finding.” and “So, I am not questioning the accuracy of the Lampadusa team’s measurements, but looking at what they have found.” Then you suggest that they are measuring variations in unmixed CO2 that blow in on the wind.
My question is why would those variations which blow in on random winds all show a diurnal cycle with some variability and all show an annual cycle with very little variability? Why would the annual cycle peak worldwide every April? How could random wind-driven CO2 cause those same observations to be repeated worldwide?

May 13, 2013 6:25 am

stewgreen says:
May 13, 2013 at 1:46 am
BTW I see Weatheraction are arguing it’s all a load of garbage anyway cos there have often been spurts over 400ppm, but this doesn’t show up in the ice core record due to an averaging effect as CO2 spreads across the ice core samples over time. http://twitpic.com/cq8agr/full
Indeed, the 400 ppmv is a load of garbage, not more interesting than the 10,000th visitor on a exposition… But the ice core samples are better than you think, at least over the past 150 years, a few of them have a resolution (smoothing) of less than a decade. The smoothing is not in the ice after closing the bubbels (there is some minor extra smoothing in “warm”, coastal ice cores, but that is negligible), but when the firn still has open pores with the atmosphere. That ranges from 8 years (Law Dome) to 560 years (Dome C), depending of snow accumulation rate.
Further, Weatheraction refers to the late Beck’s data, which were taken at completely unreliable sites (middle of growing plants, towns,…) for CO2 levels. Not the best reference:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
May 13, 2013 6:46 am

-Thanks @Ferdinand Engelbeen strange how things tie together I have just a few minutes ago and yesterday been reading your reactions to Salby and to his study still not being published due to “conspiracy” (pity they didn’t put the new Frankfurt video up yet) .
– “ice core samples are better than you think” ..I don’t think anything yet ..I try to keep an open mind until the end of the game. But weather action cite that spikes have crossed the 400 limit inside the last 250 years and many times before.
– PLEASE some one tell me I am idiot for understanding why the Twitter feeds of the 2 official Moana measurers have still not given any days for the a readings over 400ppm

May 13, 2013 6:46 am

Myrrh says:
May 13, 2013 at 4:40 am
Someone else who understands what arbitrarily means..: http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/01/12/ice-core-bubbles-and-carbon-dioxide/
Sorry, but that story is mostly based on the very unreliable thoughts of the late Jaworowski. I had some direct correspondence with him about the reliability of ice cores. Main points: he insists that CO2 levels can migrate from lower to higher levels and that the average age of the enclosed air bubbles is the same as from the surrounding ice. That closed the door for me.
What he didn’t mention is that the Greenland ice cores are unreliable for CO2 measurements, because of frequent deposits of highly acidic dust from Icelandic volcanoes, which react with the often present carbonate deposits from the oceans in the ice. What he also forgets to mention is that Neftel showed that there was very much variation in CO2 levels where contamination of the ice with drilling fluid was found. The high levels found had nothing to do with the real values in the ice bubbles.
Further, as Jaworowski’s knowledge seems to have ended in 1992, he obviously didn’t read the 1996 work of Etheridge e.a. on three ice cores at Law Dome with three different drilling techniques (no difference in values). Neither any of the new techniques used to measure CO2: complete sublimation of the ice under vacuum and cryogenic separation of all components. That effectively destroys any clathrates and makes that water is of no hide for CO2.
See further:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html

Myrrh
May 13, 2013 7:33 am

eric1skeptic says:
May 13, 2013 at 6:05 am
Myrrh said “this background measurement is what is being measured and it is free of any local/seasonal variations because it mixes rapidly and thorougly”
The claim is that mixing spreads the seasonal wiggle from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere. In the NH the measured wiggle is 10ppm or more. In Antarctica the measured wiggle is only a few ppm. Obviously mixing is not that thorough, but it is rapid enough to see the same wiggle without lag.
And just how does it spread from the northern hemisphere to the sourthern?

May 13, 2013 7:36 am

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

Kitefreak
May 13, 2013 11:17 am

DJ says:
May 10, 2013 at 12:40 pm
…Can’t type……. …. turning blue…….. Plants taking over computer now……. barely hanging on….. …. love you guys…….
—————————————————————–
Thanks for the laugh there DJ – that was FAF.

Myrrh
May 13, 2013 2:29 pm

http://researchmatters.noaa.gov/news/Pages/CarbonDioxideatMaunaLoareaches400ppm.aspx
“Once emitted, CO2 added to the atmosphere and oceans remains for thousands of years. Thus, climate changes forced by CO2 depend primarily on cumulative emissions, making it progressively more and more difficult to avoid further substantial climate change.”
Every time it rains all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is washed out and comes to the surface.
Water has a residence time in the atmosphere of 8-10 days.
The AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect Illusion does not have the Water Cycle.
It has taken rain out of the Carbon Cycle.
This is a continuous cycle.
Carbon dioxide is being continually washed out of the atmosphere.
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
“Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the “greenhouse effect”1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.
“Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as “forcing” climate change whereas gases, such as water, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as “feedbacks.””
Nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide do respond physically to changes in temperature. They expand when heated and condense when cooled.
That is the nature of gases.
That’s how we get our winds, convection in a fluid creating convection currents as hot gases rise and cold gases sink. Winds are volumes of atmosphere on the move, they do not cross hemisphere, but stay in their own.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/physics-terms/expansion-info.htm
“Steam engines and turbines, rockets, and internal combustion engines are powered by the expansion of gases. Bread rises in baking because heat expands the carbon dioxide gas it contains.”
When a volume of gas is heated it expands, it becomes less dense, lighter under gravity and so lighter than air it will rise. When it loses its heat it condenses, it becomes more dense, heavier under gravity and so will sink.
Nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide are therefore “feedbacks”, not “forcers” according to this explanation.
So what’s doing the forcing?

May 13, 2013 4:59 pm

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

gymnosperm
May 13, 2013 8:06 pm

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

May 13, 2013 11:44 pm

gymnosperm says:
May 13, 2013 at 8:06 pm
I disagree. There is enormous 13C depleted production in the oceans from SAR11 and other respiring critters. It may be almost immediately consumed by cyanobacteria in what I have called the nano carbon cycle because pelagic photosynthesis is also carbon limited, but who really knows?
The d13C level of the deep oceans is between 0 and 1 per mil. The d13C level of the ocean surface is between 1 and 5 per mil, thanks to all biolife that preferentially uses 12C, which in part falls out of the surface into the deep oceans. The atmosphere was at -6.4 per mil but dropped over the industrial age to -8 per mil. Even taking into account the change in 13C/12C ratio at the water-air border and back, any substantial emissions from the oceans should increase the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio, not decrease… See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif

May 13, 2013 11:58 pm

Myrrh says:
May 13, 2013 at 2:29 pm
Every time it rains all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is washed out and comes to the surface.
Solubility of CO2 in fresh water is very low. So that is a bold, unsubstantiated statement.
Further: many rain clouds are below a few thousands meters, but stations like Mauna Loa and near surface at Hawaii show similar CO2 levels, even if Mauna Loa is mostly above the clouds…

Myrrh
May 14, 2013 5:11 am

eric1skeptic says:
May 13, 2013 at 4:59 pm
Myrrh asked “And just how does it spread from the northern hemisphere to the sourthern?”
Something along these lines: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1997)054%3C2045%3AIEBSMO%3E2.0.CO%3B2 Basically the winter Hadley cell crosses the equator and mixes air with the opposite hemisphere. It takes a while to mix. So the southern hemisphere wiggle is very subdued and may come mostly from perihelion.

But Hadley cells are part and parcel of the real world of why the winds don’t cross hemispheres –
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/hadley_cell.html
The flow of volumes of air is from the equator to the poles and back again to the poles, keeping to their own hemispheres. If there was no Earth’s spin this flow would simply be to the poles and back again. Volumes of the fluid gases air which are our atmosphere are heated intensely at the equator and expand becoming less dense therefore lighter under gravity, creating areas of low pressure, and so rise, and flow to the poles. [Heat always flows from hotter to colder spontaneously as water always flows spontaneously downhill; in the 2nd Law spontaneously is implicit, it takes work to change that. AGWScienceFictiion has added the word “net” to the 2nd Law changing its meaning.] The great difference between the hot equator and the cold of the poles makes the heat flow faster. Some on heat flow here: http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/heatflow.htm
This is heat transfer by convection the method of heat transfer in real gas fluids, compare with heat transfer in solids by conduction and and heat trasfer by radiation not requiring a medium. Our real gas atmosphere is a fluid, gases and liquids are fluids, a heavy ocean of gas air of mainly nitrogen and oxygen weighting 14lb/sq inch, pressing down a ton on your shoulders. Real gases move in that relative to their own weight (carbon dioxide heavier will sink, methane and water vapour will rise) and that changes when heated or cooled as they expand or condense. When the hot lighter volumes of air reach the poles their heat is grabbed by the cold and they lose their heat becoming more dense, now heavier under gravity these cold high pressure volumes sink and flow back to the poles to begin the cycle again.
Add in the spin of the Earth, the Coriolis effect, to get the patterns of our trade winds, and they do not cross hemispheres. These are powerful winds created by the great heat differential between the poles and the equator. There is insignificant mixing at the equator against this.
So, as with Mauna Loa, we have to go back to the original claim which is “rapid diffusion of gases in the atmosphere”, so “it takes a while to mix” and “forty years wind turbulence” doesn’t cut it..
The “rapid diffusion” is based on their claim that these are “ideal” gases not “real” gases. Ideal gases began as an imaginary construct which stripped them of all properties and processes of real gas. Ideal gas are hard dots of nothing, they have no mass on which gravity can act, no volume which Van de Waals pointed out would be useless in calculations. Ideal gases without mass have no attraction but bounce off each other at great speeds travelling under their own molecular momentum miles apart from each other in empty space without the volume of other gases to impede them. They are entirely an artificial construct, imaginary, and are useful in calculation only when when volume and the rest is put back in. No real gas obeys ideal gas “law”. The ideal gas “law” is an imaginary construct like “average”.
What AGWScienceFiction has done is create an imaginary world from an imaginary ideal gas scenario, brainwashing, there isn’t any other world for it, through the general education system that these are actually real gases and this is how real gases behave. You’ll hear the AGWSF meme in “pressure” arguments, that “gases bounce of the wall of the container”, this comes from explanations of ideal gas behaviour in beginning real world calculations by real scientists who know the difference between real and ideal in their use of the concept “container, but, AGW “warmists” don’t know the difference and don’t know they have no volume to put back in again, so they think this “container” is real. They think this is their imaginary invisible “container” which “like the glass of a greenhouse prevents the radiant heat flow from the Sun from entering at TOA – no longwave infrared from the Sun can enter – and against which from the inside their imaginary massless ideal gases bounce off so creating their “lapse” rates, or whatever convoluted argument they’re having throwing in lots of complicated mathematical equations for their “columns of air”.
So, they don’t have an atmosphere, they go straight from the surface into the empty space of their ideal gas scenario, substuting an imaginary invisible “container” keeping their ideal gases from flying off into outer space as they rapidly diffuse at great speeds under their own molecular momentum urestrained by the real container, the volumes of real gas air under gr