Introducing the WUWT CO2 Reference Page

Greg Goodman says:
August 3, 2014 at 5:04 am
He changed tings on the CO2 reference page but not in this post.
[Rather, “things” ? .mod]

Greg Goodman says:
August 3, 2014 at 4:54 am
////////////
I stand corrected that the post 1960 data came sourced from Briffa’s data.
Everyone knows that trees are not thermometers. Everyone ought to know that their growth response is a response to environmental conditions in general, not specifically to temperature, ie., wide growth shows that environmentat conditions were favourable, narrow growth shows that environmental conditions were unfavourable. It does not tell us why the environmental conditions were favourable and in particular which component and/or components within the environmental conditions were favourable or unfavourable (as the case may be). Don’t forget that the Climategate emails suggest that the Team were alive to the fact that trees were not a global proxy etc.
The point I make is that a genuine scientist, not an activist, having discovered that there was a difference between the response between the late 1800s to about 1960 (on which the proxy was tuned), and its post 1990 response had made a discovery of interest. Such a scientist would set out details of the limitations of the proxy data (eg., that the trees are taken from only a small area of the globe and therefore may not represent global conditions more generally, and that they are showing a growth response to environmental conditions generally, not to temperature specifically), but within that limitation and to the extent that trees are considered to be a good proxy for ascertaining temperatures, then the divergence suggested that there were problems with the post 1990 land based thermometer record.
Mann could have written a very good paper, concentrating on the divergence issue, what this may suggest, and highlighting why there may be problems in the land based thermometer record. It is probably no coincidence that the divergence problem coincides with rapid urbanisation, expansion of the road network, more affluent central heating and aircon in homes, the beginning of statioon drop outs etc. If he had not been primarily an activist, one might have expected his paper to concentrate on that aspect.
Whilst I for one hate all proxies and consider that they should all be taken with a very large dose of salt, it may well be that the tree data is not as bad as one thinks that it would be, in that it is correctly recording that there was little temperature rise in the 70s, 80s and 90s (I have not checked but I think that the data pre dates the 1998 El Nino). This is what the satellite data tells us, namley temperatures were essentially flat in the satellite era up to 1997..

Jimmy Haigh. says:
August 2, 2014 at 9:20 pm
Steve Goddard has noticed something interesting: “…the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and the magnitude of USHCN data tampering” shows a 1:1 correlation.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/02/proof-that-us-warming-is-mann-made/#comments
====
What he’s showing is the climate models are crap and rigged…..the same linear trend the models project…is the same linear trend as CO2
All the models are showing is X CO2 level = X temp
…..it’s all adjustments to the temp

Haven’t had time to read everything but one thing I’d like to see is the lag time between when CO2 level is reached with the human contribution, and when it is reached with the human contribution nulled. Is it a matter of months, years, or decades? Example: When will the volume of “natural” CO2 reach 400PPM? The lag is what our trillions are buying us.

richardscourtney says:
August 3, 2014 at 6:09 am
You assume that only the processes of the seasonal variation affect long term changes, and then you apply the effect of only those processes to supposedly show that longer term processes are not involved in long term changes. A more circular argument than that is not possible! .
Richard, you have surpassed yourself in crooked reasoning.
I never said or even implied that short term processes are dominant in long term CO2 changes. As far as I remember it is you who every time insists that the residual of the short term variation is what drives the CO2 increase and that the fast move of large quantities CO2 in and out during a few months “proves” that the seasonal processes are not limited but “could” absorb more CO2, but you don’t know why they don’t (my standard answer: because they can’t: they are limited in capacity).
What is important is that the short term processes are short term and are not the same processes that make the longer term changes happen.
The longer term changes are from extra vegetation growth and vegetation area (NOT from increased diurnal or seasonal cycles) when temperatures increase after a cold period at one side and opposite from the warming of the oceans and/or ocean current changes as result of that warming.
The CO2 record shows an increase of 8 ppmv/°C and a slight increase of δ13C with temperature increase over decades to multi-millennia for the sum of all processes involved . Thus the oceans are dominant over those time frames.
About the stomata data, we have discussed that before: that are proxies with their particular problems, including the absolute height of the data. If they don’t match the ice core averages over the same time frame as the resolution of the ice cores, the stomata data are certainly wrong.
And the increase since the LIA is at maximum 1°C, thus maximum 17 ppmv extra in the atmosphere for seawater, according to Henry’s Law. Minus what the extra plant growth absorbs. In average for all processes together: 8 ppmv/°C. The rest of the 100+ ppmv is from human emissions.