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:
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:
“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.
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!
I need two size large t-shirts, please.
We’re doomed, of course.
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.
I’ll bring the cake if someone else brings the 400 candles!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
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. …”
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.
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.
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
I survived 400,000 parts per billion
BBC CO2 cant fails honesty test http://twitpic.com/cpqowe/full
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 8th, CO2 day
until the Earth reaches 500ppm (could be very very long time)
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.
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
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.
I’ll sign up for a XX Large, please! Can paypal it the day you make the announcement, if interest has been high enough.
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
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
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