Opinion by Dr. Tim Ball
I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. – Arthur Conan Doyle. (Sherlock Holmes)
Create The Facts You Want.
In a comment about the WUWT article “The Record of recent Man-made CO2 emissions: 1965-2013”, Pamela Gray, graphically but pointedly, summarized the situation.
When will we finally truly do the math? The anthropogenic only portion of atmospheric CO2, let alone China’s portion, does not have the cojones necessary to make one single bit of “weather” do a damn thing different. Take out just the anthropogenic CO2 and rerun the past 30 years of weather. The exact same weather pattern variations would have occurred. Or maybe because of the random nature of weather we would have had it worse. Or it could have been much better. Now do something really ridiculous and take out just China’s portion. I know, the post isn’t meant to paint China as the bad guy. But. Really? Really? All this for something so tiny you can’t find it? Not even in a child’s balloon?
The only quibble I have is that the amount illustrates the futility of the claims, as Gray notes, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are focused on trends and attribution. It must have a human cause and be steadily increasing, or, as they prefer – getting worse.
Narrowing the Focus
It’s necessary to revisit criticisms of CO2 levels created by the IPCC over the last several years. Nowadays, a measure of the accuracy of the criticisms, are the vehemence of the personal attacks designed to divert from the science and evidence.
From its inception, the IPCC focused on human production of CO2. It began with the definition of climate change, provided by the UNFCCC, as only those caused by humans. The goal was to prove their hypothesis that increase of atmospheric CO2 would cause warming. This required evidence that the level increased from pre-Industrial times, and would increase each year because of human industrial activity. How long before they start reducing the rate of CO2 increase to make it fit the declining temperatures? They are running out of guesses, 30 at latest count, to explain the continued lack of temperature increase now at 17 years and 10 months.
The IPCC makes the bizarre claim that up until 1950 human addition of CO2 was a minor driver of global temperature. After that over 90 percent of temperature increase is due to human CO2.
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.
The claim that a fractional increase in CO2 from human sources, which is naturally only 4 percent of all greenhouse gases, become the dominant factor in just a couple of years is incredulous. This claim comes from computer models, which are the only place in the world where a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. It depends on human production and atmospheric levels increasing. It assumes temperature continues to increase, as all three of IPCC scenario projections imply.
Their frustration is they control the CO2 data, but after the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) began satellite global temperature data, control of temperature data was curtailed. It didn’t stop them completely, as disclosures by McIntyre, Watts, Goddard, the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition among others, illustrated. They all showed adjustments designed to enhance and emphasize higher modern temperatures.
Now they’re confronted with T. H. Huxley’s challenge,
The Great Tragedy of Science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.
This article examines how the modern levels of atmospheric CO2 were determined and controlled to fit the hypothesis. They may fit a political agenda, but they don’t fit nature’s agenda.
New Deductive Method; Create the Facts to Fit the Theory
Farhad Manjoo asked in True Enough: Learning To Live In A Post-fact Society,
“Why has punditry lately overtaken news? Why do lies seem to linger so long in the cultural subconscious even after they’ve been thoroughly discredited? And why, when more people than ever before are documenting the truth with laptops and digital cameras, does fact-free spin and propaganda seem to work so well?”
Manjoo’s comments apply to society in general, but are enhanced about climate science because of differing public abilities with regard to scientific issues. A large majority is more easily deceived.
Manjoo argues that people create facts themselves or find someone to produce them. Creating data is the only option in climate science because, as the 1999 NRC Report found, there is virtually none. A response to February 3, 1999 US National Research Council (NRC) Report on Climate Data said,
“Deficiencies in the accuracy, quality and continuity of the records place serious limitations on the confidence that can be placed in the research results.
The situation is worse today. The number of stations used is dramatically reduced and records adjusted to lower historic temperature data, which increases the gradient of the record. Lack of data for the oceans was recently identified.
“Two of the world’s premiere ocean scientists from Harvard and MIT have addressed the data limitations that currently prevent the oceanographic community from resolving the differences among various estimates of changing ocean heat content.”
Oceans are critical to CO2 levels because of their large sink or source capacity.
Data necessary to create a viable determination of climate mechanisms and thereby climate change, is completely inadequate. This applies especially to the structure of climate models. There is no data for at least 80 percent of the grids covering the globe, so they guess; it’s called parameterization. The 2007 IPCC Report notes,
Due to the limited resolutions of the models, many of these processes are not resolved adequately by the model grid and must therefore be parameterized. The differences between parameterizations are an important reason why climate model results differ.
Variable results occur because of inadequate data at the most basic level and subjective choices by the people involved.
The IPCC Produce The Human Production Numbers
In the 2001, IPCC Report identified 6.5 GtC (gigatons of carbon) from human sources. The figure rose to 7.5 GtC in the 2007 report and by 2010 it was 9.5 GtC. Where did they get these numbers? The answer is the IPCC has them produced and then vet them. In the FAQ section they ask, “How does the IPCC produce its Inventory Guidelines?”
Utilizing IPCC procedures, nominated experts from around the world draft the reports that are then extensively reviewed twice before approval by the IPCC.
They were called Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) until the 2013 Report, when they became Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP). In March 2001, John Daly reports Richard Lindzen referring to the SRES and the entire IPCC process including SRES as follows,
In a recent interview with James Glassman, Dr. Lindzen said that the latest report of the UN-IPCC (that he helped author), “was very much a children’s exercise of what might possibly happen” prepared by a “peculiar group” with “no technical competence.”
William Kininmonth, author of the insightful book “Climate Change: A Natural Hazard”, was former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and their delegate to the WMO Commission for Climatology. He wrote the following in an email on the ClimateSceptics group page.
I was at first confused to see the RCP concept emerge in AR5. I have come to the conclusion that RCP is no more than a sleight of hand to confuse readers and hide absurdities in the previous approach.
You will recall that the previous carbon emission scenarios were supposed to be based on solid economic models. However, this basis was challenged by reputable economists and the IPCC economic modelling was left rather ragged and a huge question mark hanging over it.
I sense the RCP approach is to bypass the fraught economic modelling: prescribed radiation forcing pathways are fed into the climate models to give future temperature rise—if the radiation forcing plateaus at 8.5W/m2 sometime after 2100 then the global temperature rise will be 3C. But what does 8.5 W/m2 mean? Previously it was suggested that a doubling of CO2 would give a radiation forcing of 3.7 W/m2. To reach a radiation forcing of 7.4 W/m2 would thus require a doubling again—4 times CO2 concentration. Thus to follow RCP8.5 it is necessary for the atmospheric CO2 concentration equivalent to exceed 1120ppm after 2100.
We are left questioning the realism of a RCP 8.5 scenario. Is there any likelihood of the atmospheric CO2 reaching about 1120 ppm by 2100? IPCC has raised a straw man scenario to give a ‘dangerous’ global temperature rise of about 3C early in the 22nd century knowing full well that such a concentration has an extremely low probability of being achieved. But, of course, this is not explained to the politicians and policymakers. They are told of the dangerous outcome if the RCP8.5 is followed without being told of the low probability of it occurring.
One absurdity is replaced by another! Or have I missed something fundamental?[1]
No, nothing is missed! However, in reality, it doesn’t matter whether it changes anything; it achieves the goal of increasing CO2 and its supposed impact of global warming. Underpinning of IPCC climate science and the economics depends on accurate data and knowledge of mechanisms and that is not available.
We know there was insufficient weather data on which to construct climate models and the situation deteriorated as they eliminated weather stations, ‘adjusted’ them and then cherry-picked data. We know knowledge of mechanisms is inadequate because the IPCC WGI Science Report says so.
Unfortunately, the total surface heat and water fluxes (see Supplementary Material, Figure S8.14) are not well observed.
or
For models to simulate accurately the seasonally varying pattern of precipitation, they must correctly simulate a number of processes (e.g., evapotranspiration, condensation, transport) that are difficult to evaluate at a global scale.
Two critical situations were central to control of atmospheric CO2 levels. We know Guy Stewart Callendar, A British steam engineer, cherry-picked the low readings from 90,000 19th century atmospheric CO2 measures. This not only established a low pre-industrial level, but also altered the trend of atmospheric levels. (Figure 1)
Figure 1 (After Jaworowski; Trend lines added)
Callendar’s work was influential in the Gore generated claims of human induced CO2 increases. However, the most influential paper in the climate community, especially at CRU and the IPCC, was Tom Wigley’s 1983 paper “The pre-industrial carbon dioxide level.” (Climatic Change. 5, 315-320). I held seminars in my graduate level climate course about its validity and selectivity to establish a pre-industrial base line.
I wrote an obituary on learning of Becks untimely death.
I was flattered when he asked me to review one of his early papers on the historic pattern of atmospheric CO2 and its relationship to global warming. I was struck by the precision, detail and perceptiveness of his work and urged its publication. I also warned him about the personal attacks and unscientific challenges he could expect. On 6 November 2009 he wrote to me, “In Germany the situation is comparable to the times of medieval inquisition.” Fortunately, he was not deterred. His friend Edgar Gartner explained Ernst’s contribution in his obituary. “Due to his immense specialized knowledge and his methodical severity Ernst very promptly noticed numerous inconsistencies in the statements of the Intergovernmental Penal on Climate Change IPCC. He considered the warming of the earth’s atmosphere as a result of a rise of the carbon dioxide content of the air of approximately 0.03 to 0.04 percent as impossible. And it doubted that the curve of the CO2 increase noted on the Hawaii volcano Mauna Loa since 1957/58 could be extrapolated linear back to the 19th century.” (This is a translation from the German)
Beck was the first to analyze in detail the 19th century data. It was data collected for scientific attempts to measure precisely the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It began in 1812, triggered by Priestly’s work on atmospheric oxygen, and was part of the scientific effort to quantify all atmospheric gases. There was no immediate political motive. Beck did not cherry-pick the results, but examined the method, location and as much detail as possible for each measure, in complete contrast to what Callendar and Wigley did.
The IPCC had to show that,
· Increases in atmospheric CO2 caused temperature increase in the historic record.
· Current levels are unusually high relative to the historic record.
· Current levels are much higher than pre-industrial levels.
· The differences between pre-industrial and current atmospheric levels are due to human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere.
Beck’s work showed the fallacy of these claims and in so doing put a big target on his back.
Again from my obituary;
Ernst Georg Beck was a scholar and gentleman in every sense of the term. His friend wrote, “They tried to denounce Ernst Georg Beck in the Internet as naive amateur and data counterfeiter. Unfortunately, Ernst could hardly defend himself in the last months because of its progressive illness.” His work, determination and ethics were all directed at answering questions in the skeptical method that is true science; the antithesis of the efforts of all those who challenged and tried to block or denigrate him.
The 19th-century CO2 measures are no less accurate than those for temperature; indeed, I would argue that Beck shows they are superior. So why, for example, are his assessments any less valid than those made for the early portions of the Central England Temperatures (CET)? I spoke at length with Hubert Lamb about the early portion of Manley’s CET reconstruction because the instruments, locations, measures, records and knowledge of the observers were comparable to those in the Hudson’s Bay Company record I was dealing with.
Once the pre-industrial level was created it became necessary to ensure the new CO2 post-industrial trend continued. It was achieved when C.D.Keeling established the Mauna Loa CO2 measuring station. As Beck notes,
Modern greenhouse hypothesis is based on the work of G.S. Callendar and C.D. Keeling, following S. Arrhenius, as latterly popularized by the IPCC.
Keeling’s son operates Mauna Loa and as Beck notes, “owns the global monopoly of calibration of all CO2 measurements.” He is also a co-author of the IPCC reports, which accept Mauna Loa and all other readings as representative of global levels. So the IPCC control the human production figures and the atmospheric CO2 levels and both are constantly and consistently increasing.
This diverts from the real problem with the measures and claims. The fundamental IPCC objective is to identify human causes of global warming. You can only determine the human portion and contribution if you know natural levels and how much they vary and we have only very crude estimates.
What Values Are Used for Each Component of the Carbon Cycle?
Dr. Dietrich Koelle is one of the few scientists to assess estimates of natural annual CO2 emissions.
Annual Carbon Dioxide Emissions GtC per annum
1.Respiration (Humans, animals, phytoplankton) 45 to 52
2. Ocean out-gassing (tropical areas) 90 to 100
3. Volcanic and other ground sources 0.5 to 2
4. Ground bacteria, rotting and decay 50 to 60
5. Forest cutting, forest fires 1 to 3
6. Anthropogenic emissions Fossil Fuels (2010) 9.5
TOTAL 196 to 226.5
Source: Dr. Dietrich Koelle
The IPCC estimate of human production (6) for 2010 was 9.5 GtC, but that is total production. One of the early issues in the push to ratify the Kyoto Protocol was an attempt to get US ratification. The US asked for carbon credits, primarily for CO2 removed through reforestation, so a net figure would apply to their assessment as a developed nation. It was denied. The reality is the net figure better represents human impact. If we use human net production (6) at 5 GtC for 2010, then it falls within the range of the estimate for three natural sources, (1), (2), and (4).
The Truth Will Out.
How much longer will the IPCC continue to produce CO2 data with trends to fit their hypothesis that temperature will continue to rise? How much longer before the public become aware of Gray’s colorful observation that, “The anthropogenic only portion of atmospheric CO2, let alone China’s portion, does not have the cojones necessary to make one single bit of “weather” do a damn thing different.” The almost 18-year leveling and slight reduction in global temperature is essentially impossible based on IPCC assumptions. One claim is already made that the hiatus doesn’t negate their science or projections, instead of acknowledging it, along with failed predictions completely rejects their fear mongering.
IPCC and EPA have already shown that being wrong or being caught doesn’t matter. The objective is the scary headline, enhanced by the constant claim it is getting worse at an increasing rate, and time is running out. Aldous Huxley said, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” We must make sure they are real and not ignored.
[1] Reproduced with permission of William Kininmonth.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gary Pearse:
At August 5, 2014 at 9:46 am you say
That depends on what you mean by “significant”.
For several years many – including me – have been pointing out that the stomata data do not support the low and stable CO2 values indicated by the ice cores. And Jaworowski always disputed the ice core data. (I am fully aware of Jaworowski’s work on ice cores. He and I collaborated for decades prior to his demise and when ill health prevented his attending Heartland 1 he asked me to provide his presentation to the Conference and I fulfilled that honour.)
Your assertion that such opposition started this week “with Pamela’s comment and Tim’s post” is plain wrong as e.g. WUWT archives show. However, it is pleasing that such reality is at last being considered. My experience is that most sceptics have refused to consider the uncertainties being discussed in this thread and, therefore, have failed to question the assumption of an anthropogenic cause for the recent rise in atmospheric CO2. The cause may be anthropogenic or natural or some combination of both, and the available information cannot demonstrate which.
Richard
@ur momisugly S Mosher:
“Actually, this is quite false.
“Take out just the anthropogenic CO2 and rerun the past 30 years of weather. The exact same weather pattern variations would have occurred.
As Pamela should know in order to improve the forecast ability of weather models you actually have to model radiative physics and yes that includes C02.”
————————-
Actually you’re wrong, the OP said “anthropogenic co2”.
Gary Pearse,
Count me as one who hasd always been skeptical of the assertions of past CO2 levels. If the atmosphere went much below 300 ppm, it would begin to affect plant life, and there is no recent evidence of that happening.
For the same reason that U.S. government agencies and others ‘adjust’ downward the past temperature record, they have an incentive to adjust downward the past CO2 record: it makes the current rise more scary.
In general there has been the same outgassing from the oceans, and the same CO2 emissions from decaying vegetation, ground bacteria, etc., as there is now. Thus, CO2 levels would not be appreciably different. But that would conflict with the narrative…
Next, regarding Beck, it might be a good idea to look at some of his work [click on the letter and/or number in the lower right corner]. More here.
Dr. Beck recorded many thousands of CO2 samples from all over the world, including from the windward side of ships crossing every major ocean, and on mountaintops, on sparsely populated coastlines, etc. He took steps to avoid human CO2 contamination.
Beck’s conclusion was that CO2 has been high in the recent past. That conflicts with the IPCC and other ‘authorities’. So Beck is denigrated, because his work does not fit the narrative…
rgbatduke – thank you so much for your cogent and thorough comments. Your latest closing line: “Truly, the miracle is that they get anybody to believe all of this stuff.” is truly a classic.
But, to paraphrase Lincoln, “… you can fool some of the people all of the time…”
The fervor with which many believe the proposed quality of our climate records and what can be gleaned from them is truly miraculous.
The first two comments display the distraction and dishonesty in Climate Surmising.
Nick Stokes and Ferdinand Engelbeen,
Are you purposefully skipping over and ignoring the most important points?
Of course you are just as every other deceitful alarmist does.
Stokes cites tonnage and Ferdinand lectures on what other stuff is irrelevant and quibbles with CO2 measurements.
Here’s what you avoid.
“The anthropogenic only portion of atmospheric CO2…… does not have the cojones necessary to make one single bit of “weather” do a damn thing different.
The claim that a fractional increase in CO2 from human sources, which is naturally only 4 percent of all greenhouse gases, become the dominant factor in just a couple of years is incredulous.
…….the warming of the earth’s atmosphere as a result of a rise of the carbon dioxide content of the air of approximately 0.03 to 0.04 percent as impossible.”
One must assume you are deliberately trying to cover up the fatal flaw in your fallacious AGW.
With the total human greenhouse gas contributions being only about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect there is no way this infinitesimal human contribution has caused anything detectable.
Talk of gigatonnes of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere and the rest of your verbose deceptions are meaningless.
Climate scientists have NEVER been able to measured the impact of the infinitesimal % of human contribution as altering anything at all while observations around the globe have contradicted all of their dishonest surmising.
Steven Mosher’s 1:34 am claiming…..
“Actually, this is quite false”
“Take out just the anthropogenic CO2 and rerun the past 30 years of weather. The exact same weather pattern variations would have occurred.
As Pamela should know in order to improve the forecast ability of weather models you actually have to model radiative physics and yes that includes C02.”
….is blatant dishonesty. He knows there is nothing measurable or useful in any climate model which can even identify the role or impact of the infinitesimal share that is anthropogenic CO2. Let alone use it to consider any weather forecasting or climate projections.
dbstealey says:
August 5, 2014 at 10:44 am
Gary Pearse,
Count me as one who hasd always been skeptical of the assertions of past CO2 levels. If the atmosphere went much below 300 ppm, it would begin to affect plant life, and there is no recent evidence of that happening.
For the same reason that U.S. government agencies and others ‘adjust’ downward the past temperature record, they have an incentive to adjust downward the past CO2 record: it makes the current rise more scary.
In general there has been the same outgassing from the oceans, and the same CO2 emissions from decaying vegetation, ground bacteria, etc., as there is now. Thus, CO2 levels would not be appreciably different. But that would conflict with the narrative…
And yet the annual increase in CO2 has grown from about 0.5ppm/yr in 1960 to about 2.5ppm/yr in recent years. Over that period the measured CO2 level has increased from 320 to 400ppm, that’s a growth of 25%. That conflicts with your narrative so you have to reject it.
Nick Stokes says:
August 5, 2014 at 4:58 am
Daniel G. says:
August 5, 2014 at 4:35 am
Nick’s graphics are crap. Integrated positive quantities of course yield affinely similar curves, in appearance. The act of integration shears away most of the information. It means nothing.
To see what is really going on, you need to look at a scale where you can make out the detail, which you can do, e.g., by taking the numerical derivative. When you do that, it quickly becomes apparent that the closest match to atmospheric CO2 activity is with temperatures, and the emissions are, in fact, diverging from the atmospheric concentration.
Humans have little impact on atmospheric CO2 levels. Our puny inputs are rapidly sequestered. Nature rules.
Has this debate finally come full circle and arrived back at the original and most germane fallacy.
That the infinitesimal human portion of CO2 and greenhouse effect embellished with no more than surmising on a grand scale to falsely make it mean what it never did and science never demonstrated.
“It’s the percent, stupid” will be my tag while this ugly chapter of humanity grinds to a halt.
Will Nitschke says:
August 5, 2014 at 3:11 am
On his blog today Goddard claimed he could detect the rate of change in global sea level rise using a single tide gauge. And nobody was going to set him straight on that. 😉
Oh like measuring global CO2 at a single location by one group of people you mean. Yes that would be very stupid.
dbstealey says:
August 5, 2014 at 10:44 am
“If the atmosphere went much below 300 ppm, it would begin to affect plant life, and there is no recent evidence of that happening.”
______________
What we do know is, the biosphere has been greening, since we’ve been able to detect such changes via satellites. The increase in growth is attributed to both higher temps and atmospheric CO2 concentrations. We only have data approxymations available before the age of instrumentation, which (conveniently for the climate fearosphere,) only began during the “Little Ice Age”. With an eye to the increasing bioactivity, we could surmise that as far as the entire biosphere is concerned, optimum planetary temperature and CO2/atm have yet to be reached.
dbstealey says:
August 5, 2014 at 10:44 am
Dr. Beck recorded many thousands of CO2 samples from all over the world, including from the windward side of ships crossing every major ocean, and on mountaintops, on sparsely populated coastlines, etc. He took steps to avoid human CO2 contamination.
db, I had years of direct discussion with the late Ernst Beck about the historical data, especially about his 1942 “peak” (which doesn’t exist in any other proxy, including stomata data).
While I can only admire the enormous amount of work he did do to get all the data out, your last sentence is what he didn’t do.
He did use all available data, no matter how impossible the data were: in the same year 450 ppmv in Giessen (Germany) and 250 ppmv somewhere in the USA. 350 ppmv at ground level and 800 ppm in balloons at several km height.
There were measurements at Barrow, Alaska an ideal spot to measure (a current “background” station). Results between 250 and 500 ppmv. Why? The equipment was used to measure CO2 in exhaled air of the researchers (~20,000 ppmv). It was calibrated with outside air. If that was between 250-500 ppmv, the equipment was deemed fit for purpose. No problem for its goal, not of any value for “background” CO2. But still used by Ernst in his compilation.
Almost all historical data taken on ships board and coastal are around the ice core data for the same period (even so with large variability, where there is hardly any nowadays). That are the main historical data which have some value.
Thus let Ernst Beck rest in peace, together with his compilation, which is, unfortunately of little value for the history of background CO2 levels on earth…
Alan Robertson says:
With an eye to the increasing bioactivity, we could surmise that as far as the entire biosphere is concerned, optimum planetary temperature and CO2/atm have yet to be reached.
I agree. More CO2 is good. At current and projected concentrations, there is no observable downside.
Ferdinand says:
I had years of direct discussion with the late Ernst Beck about the historical data…
Why didn’t you show him the error of his ways?
Phil. says:
…That conflicts with your narrative so you have to reject it.
Wrong, as usual. Re-read what I posted, with an attempt to understand it.
Bart says:
August 5, 2014 at 11:35 am
Bart’s graphs are crap: he attributes the whole trend in CO2 to an unknown function of temperature, which violates Henry’s Law, while the obvious candidate – human emissions – disappear in space, sorry unknown sinks.
His temperature/CO2 plot shows the fast changes caused by temperature + the increase caused by human emissions.
His second plot gives a false impression of a huge change, because he manipulates scales and offsets of one variable against the other. If you plot both on the same scale without offset that gives:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em4.jpg
The dark blue line is simply 53% of the emissions while the red line is the emissions minus the removal function which is in ratio with the extra total CO2 pressure in the atmosphere above equilibrium which is influenced by temperature.
Both lines still are largely within the natural variability of the sink rate.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
re your post at August 5, 2014 at 12:31 pm.
Many people interacted with the late Ernst Georg Beck. I assisted him with his production of a version of his paper in English for publication. I refused any payment for the help so he posted an unsolicited bottle of best German wine to me. I consider him to have been a friend.
His scientific work was exemplary and should not be ignored because its results do not agree with what you want to be true.
As you say, his collated data indicates a peak of atmospheric CO2 concentration which does not agree with proxy indications. But, and contrary to your assertion, this is not a reason to ignore his finding: it is a reason to determine why the direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentration in the early 1940s provide a difference from the proxy indications for that time.
Richard
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 5, 2014 at 12:47 pm
Re Ferdinand’s plot:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em4.jpg
Of course “both lines are largely within the natural variability of the sink rate”. He scaled them to be there, by applying the best fit with all the data gathered together. And, he doesn’t match the variability of the CO2 line – the match is, at best, a very coarse concurrence of direction (up). Big deal. A coin toss. Proves nothing.
More to the point, Ferdinand’s graph still cannot hide the fact that the rate of emissions is continuing to increase in the last decade, while the rate of atmospheric concentration is at a standstill, coincident with the standstill in temperatures.
dbstealey says:
August 5, 2014 at 12:44 pm
Why didn’t you show him the error of his ways?
I did, but it did cost me a lot of time to convince him. At last he did remove the Barrow series (after looking at the equipment calibration procedures!) and a few other problematic series: the 1925-1927 CO2 measurements of the German “Meteor” research ship. That ship did measure equilibrium pCO2 in seawater at different depths (down to 2000 meter!). Ernst interpreted the “0 m” measurements as measured in the atmosphere while it was from the seawater surface. Which is a hell of a difference if you measure that in polar or equatorial waters…
But he refused to drop the Poonah and Giessen series which produced his 1942 “peak”…
richardscourtney says:
August 5, 2014 at 10:11 am
“Gary Pearse:
At August 5, 2014 at 9:46 am you say
Preindustrial CO2 levels were one of the ‘facts’ that sceptics had remarkably not challenged in any significant way.
That depends on what you mean by “significant”.”
Thank you Richard. I take your point and I’ve been made aware of the past contributors to the question of CO2 levels, but for some reason, it hasn’t had the traction that criticism of temperature adjustments, poor statistics, proxies, and arguments over LIA, MWP, etc, mechanisms, and so on. The overwhelming criticism of consensus climate sci has been just about everything but CO2. I offered my own small reasons for disbelieving the pre-industrial CO2 levels. Perhaps I should have said “effective” instead of significant.
I do believe the discussions of rising CO2 for 18 years of the “pause” to be the beginning of “effectiveness” in questioning CO2 data before and since the industrial revolution. I think this has the “Team” more animated than anything else. If CO2 levels of yore turn out to have been higher than those of the consensus catechisms, then the theory has been totally demolished. Mosher’s and Stokes’s radiative physics plaints will also be on the scrap heap if CO2 has varied around recent values going back into the past. I suppose they could dust the patina off the volcanic outpourings of CO2 to give us the MWP, etc but I note that Volcanic contributions are small single digit Gt these days.
Being a geologist and having studied the effects of diffusion of elements in metamorphism in solid rocks, I also have a healthy dose of scepticism concerning the accuracy of the CO2 record in ice. The enormous ice pressures have pressed the underlyiing land surface in Greenland and Antarctica to below sea level. How is it possible that there has been no diffusion of gases in this environment? I can think of a simple experiment to evaluate this. No, I think CO2 is the last stand, the other side of the equation made to fit the CAGW scenario. Oh, and Richard, I take nothing away from those who have tried to raise the CO2 issues to prominence.
Bart says:
August 5, 2014 at 1:02 pm
“More to the point, Ferdinand’s graph still cannot hide the fact that the rate of emissions is continuing to increase in the last decade, while the rate of atmospheric concentration is at a standstill, coincident with the standstill in temperatures.”
_____________
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
Alan Robertson,
I think maybe Bart was referring to the lack of change in the rate of CO2 concentration: …the rate of atmospheric concentration is at a standstill, coincident with the standstill in temperatures. In other words, there has been no acceleration. The graph you posted shows a steady rise; no acceleration. Anyway, that’s how I read it.
sorry, there was some computer glitch (maintenance) which did me post three times, which all three were posted afterwards…
Bart says:
August 5, 2014 at 1:02 pm
More to the point, Ferdinand’s graph still cannot hide the fact that the rate of emissions is continuing to increase in the last decade, while the rate of atmospheric concentration is at a standstill, coincident with the standstill in temperatures.
There is no reason to hide anything, neither to blow up the differences by using different scales: the first halve of the CO2 data give some 60% “airborne fraction” of human emissions. The second halve about 40%. Big deal. Even if it was 1% or 99%, still humans are responsible for the increase…
But it is indeed interesting, as that refutes the fear of the IPCC, as according to the Bern model the deep oceans should start to be saturated and thus the airborne fraction should increase, not decrease.
IIRC, didn’t someone actually do an analysis that purported to show the anthropogenic contribution to global warming by removing the supposed portion of anthropogenic CO2 and running models? I’m not touting the validity of the study, but it was implied that it either hadn’t been done or that it had been done but the results were inconclusive. From what I recall, there was a study like this and it was in, I think IPCC AR4. I think they attributed “roughly half” of the warming to human CO2 emissions.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 5, 2014 at 1:11 pm
dbstealey says:
August 5, 2014 at 12:44 pm
Why didn’t you show him the error of his ways?
I did, but it did cost me a lot of time to convince him.
Ferdinand, I have read your many offerings on CO2 in air and water and have come to regard you as an expert on this molecule, component isotopes and its aquatic chemistry. However, I’m concerned that your stuff may be too much in an erlenmeyer flask. Where on this globe do you think we should be collecting the data?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82142
I suspect there is a CO2 hole at both poles (not shown for antarctica in the image) – possibly in part because of its diamagnetic property (like ozone). In any case it doesn’t look as uniformly distributed as advertized. Also, what do you think the CO2 levels were like in the MWP, Holocene Optimum, etc.
Phil. says:
August 5, 2014 at 11:35 am
“dbstealey says:
August 5, 2014 at 10:44 am
Gary Pearse,
Count me as one who has always been skeptical of the assertions of past CO2 levels. …
Phil. says:
And yet the annual increase in CO2 has grown from about 0.5ppm/yr in 1960 to about 2.5ppm/yr in recent years. Over that period the measured CO2 level has increased from 320 to 400ppm, that’s a growth of 25%. That conflicts with your narrative so you have to reject it”
Or so the keepers of the molecule say! Just where on NASA’s globe below would you say we should be collecting CO2 data. From ~ 20degrees N to 90 S, CO2 seems to be a bit thin. And why would you think that pre-industrial levels of CO2 were ~280 or so when in the MWP – warmer than now – wine grapes were grown in Scotland then. Indeed, why wouldn’t it make sense to think that CO2 was even more concentrated than now? It would better fit the CAGW narrative. I know they have been trying to kill off the MWP for a couple of decades now so they haven’t thought the CO2 of the question through. I’m sure there is a paper in the works somewhere putting the CO2 back into years of yore to account for MWP, etc. What does it take to instill a tiny bit of doubt in your mind after all the well publicized shennanigans that have been perpetrated by the climate industrial complex?
richardscourtney says:
August 5, 2014 at 12:55 pm
it is a reason to determine why the direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentration in the early 1940s provide a difference from the proxy indications for that time.
The reason is quite simple: the 1942 peak in the historical data is mainly based on two series of data: Poonah, India and Giessen Germany. The first series should have been discarded completely (except a few measurements over barren land), because that were measurements of CO2 in growing crops. For the second series we fortunately have a modern station in the direct neighborhood of the old station so that we can compare the local data at a place that didn’t change that much over time (there are more cars today, but wartime also had its “traffic jams”).
The old data were taken three times a day of which two at the flanks of the (huge under inversion) diurnal changes. Taking samples 10 minutes later or earlier would already give 40 ppmv difference. But even on time, the bias of the three measurements together is ~40 ppmv for the modern station.
Besides that, the variability of the historical measurements (68 ppmv – 1 sigma) casts doubt on the accuracy of the equipment which was theoretically accurate to 3% ( ~10 ppmv). The modern station variability is around 30 ppmv – 1 sigma.
dbstealey says:
August 5, 2014 at 1:29 pm
Alan Robertson,
I think maybe Bart was referring to the lack of change in the rate of CO2 concentration: …the rate of atmospheric concentration is at a standstill, coincident with the standstill in temperatures. In other words, there has been no acceleration. The graph you posted shows a steady rise; no acceleration. Anyway, that’s how I read it.
___________________
You’re right, Bart meant the annual rate of change of CO2atm/T. To me, the graph of the Mauna Loa data set shows a nearly constant rate of change in all years, regardless of T.