THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Max #2350
Yes, the report does make more sense and the temperature reconstructions would be of interest to me. However in the meantime I am trying to work with real figures rather than reconstructions and was hoping for your (and the others) help.
Please look at my #2321 and 2330 where I posted actual CET figures going back to 1660 and actual Co2 levels going back to 1750. .
I have redrawn the charts by hand to the same timescale, placing one graph over the other. It is clear there is no correlation with historic Co2 and the figures do not follow the keeling curve.
I have two questions;
1) Surely it is very basic science to merge the actual co2 figures with the actual temperature figures? Can anyone point me to a graph where this has already been done?
2) If not I intend to redraw them electronically but would like to ensure I have got the correct parameters before I start.
Please re read either of my earlier posts and let me know if I am on the right track. We keep getting sidetracked and whilst the political discussions are very interesting in their own right, it does mean the factual information keeps getting passed over. Can Max (or anyone!) please tell me if my assumptions for redrawing the graphs are correct?
thanks
TonyB
TonyB: figures 2 [(a) and (b)] and 3 in this paper and the chart on page 11 of this paper may help. Also figures 1 (page 260), 2 (page 263) and 12 (page 273) of this paper and figure 2 of this paper may be useful.
This article by (sorry Peter) Richard Lindzen is worth reading. In it he demonstrates, inter alia, how
He describes how
noting that these
He shows how this
Interesting stuff.
Robin
Thanks for those excellent refernces whi I will download then print off the relevant parts. In my archivesI also came across this which is in much the same vein.
http://www.pensee-unique.fr/001_mwr-083-10-0225.pdf
The Keeling curve is hopelessly wrong when looked at in a historic perspective and if CO2 has any measurable impact on our temperatures it must have been higher in the past than the 280ppm quoted.
TonyB
Robin #2353
These two reports are along much the same lines.
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124&ct=1
The one above concerns why most published research is false and is probably universal if the research documents that come my way are anything to go by.
The one below is more specific to climate change.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8
TonyB
Robin
I have looked through the various co2 data articles you posted. The one I posted corroborates much of your information. I think you will enjoy page 228 of my link as it gives worldwide levels dating back 150 years. Max will also like it as he is mentioned in the chart under Switzerland!!
This particular study is dated 1955-I generally like the older documents as they are free of the politics and spin associated with later studies.
The analysis of co2 levels is not difficult-as can be seen by the way Scripps collected it. Finding worldwide levels is more problematic and I suspect that the IPCC method was by way of observations plus a lot of computer modelling. Like Dr Mann the CO2 modellers may not have been very good historians and failed to consider the historic context.
TonyB
TonyB – you may like this.
Robin
The link below leads to Becks work plus interesting blog comments. Note that Beck has researched various papers and identified co2 peaks around 1825 1857 and 1942.
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-163931.html
Look back to my post 2321 where I posted actual CET records dating back to 1660
http://www.leif.org/research/CET1.png
Those peaks can be clearly seen in that chart.
The co2 levels shown under
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.html
therefore seem to be an underestimation if Becks and other papers are correct.. It seems to be this lack of historic perspective again…
TonyB
Note to TonyB
To your efforts to reconstruct a temperature record covering earlier historical periods:
There is quite a bit of historical literature out there on the Medieval Warm Period (10th to 14th century AD), which points to a period of warmer climate than today (an estimated 0.6 to 1.0°C at the maximum, around 1150 AD). This followed a colder period (500 to 900 AD), where temperatures were an estimated 2°C colder than today; it was followed by another colder period starting around 1300 AD, with temperatures dropping to around 2°C colder than today in the mid 15th century, where it remained (with some shorter term oscillations) until the mid 19th century, when the current temperature records and modern warming period started.
German studies have shown that trajectories of cyclones during the MWP were apparently 3 to 5 degrees latitude further north than today. Crop records show that wine grapes were cultivated as far north as Scotland, fig trees as far north as Cologne. In Germany, forests were reduced from 75% to 20% of the total area, making room for rapidly growing agriculture. Human population grew rapidly and many new cities sprang up. Vikings settled Iceland in 874 and Greenland in 999, where they grazed cattle and sheep on the pastures that are now covered with ice. Viking records show that they sailed to Newfoundland, where they found wild grapes, naming the location “Vinland”.
In the Alps there were similar human migrations made possible by the warming climate in the 10th century from what is today the upper Valais (Switzerland) across alpine passes to high alpine valleys of Graubünden (Switzerland), the Vorarlberg (Austria) and Vallorcine (Italy). These new settlers (called the “Valser”) brought with them a Germanic language, gradually replacing the older Romanisch-speaking inhabitants who were settled in the lower valleys.
Around 1300 AD the Valser were forced to abandon their high alpine pastures because of the advancing snow and ice of the early Little Ice Age (which lasted until the mid 19th century), as confirmed by many chronicles as well as by studies of the alpine glaciers by glaciologists. Chronicles tell of medieval alpine gold and silver mines that were covered up by advancing ice and snow and then shut down. Remnants of these mines, other signs of early civilization plus vegetation are found from time to time, as the glaciers retreat today.
The Vikings were also forced to abandon their Greenland settlements, as the pastures became covered with snow and the sea passages to Scandinavia became impassable due to ice.
There are also crop records from northern China, confirming that oranges were cultivated there at the time, so the MWP was not just a European phenomenon.
These are all historical data. It is difficult to take all this information and reconstruct a temperature curve for this period (a “globally averaged annual temperature” is a modern construct that has very little to do with actual climate anywhere in the world).
I hope you can gather enough information together to reconstruct a meaningful temperature curve.
Regards,
Max
Max,
It may be that Robin would think that we have drifted off the topic. However, what is not off topic is your blatant misuse of statistics to support your warped view of the world in any way you can.
But maybe we should be charitable about this. I can only presume that you did not realise that Bulgaria and Romania did not join the EU until last year. And that Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania did not join until 2004. Homicide rates from 1998 for these countries cannot by definition be used for the EU.
TonyN: OT comments went out of fashion a few hours ago, you missed the warning signs.
Solar Irradiance Reconstruction
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt
Magnify to clear this up…..
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif
TonyN, Reur 2339, and Robin Reur 2333,
Might I add that shortly before I actually read the report identified by Robin, I had heard words to the effect, on radio-news somewhere, (ABC/BBC/DW?), that new research has just PROVED that recent polar melting was anthro-caused. I was only half-listening, and just a touch cynical, so cannot be concise on my source, but do you get my point; that the media and whatnot may apply some spin? (It was the word PROVED, that really offended my ear!)
Thus it spins out of control, like an urban myth.
So, I thought, OK, I’d better check-out Robin’s first cited report by Pallab Ghosh, only to find that it does NOT say that at all. Pallab actually uses a lot of conditional words such as ‘may’. However, I don’t think those words really come across to any lay-person because Pallab does not elaborate on what modelling really means. Hence, the report may sound to some as being far more significant than it really is, but to others as not much at all, because it relies on assumptions, AKA guesswork.
I have not heard of “Stotty” before, but as he apparently works for Phil Jones, then it makes sense to me that: “Stotty has form, lots and lots of it”
Let me comment on my long interest on dear’ol Phil Jones and his clan:
It is without any doubt that this Jones is a buddy of Michael E Mann, (et al), the inventor of the “Hockeystick”, which has been proven to be a fraud. Yet dear’ol Phil has continued to support Mann et al. (Keeping it brief)
Did you know of their fundamentalist kinship?
For instance, try a simple Google on:
“Mann climate Jones” gives ~1,080,00 hits
“M. Mann P. Jones” gives ~413,000 hits.
“Michael Mann Phil Jones” ~307,000 hits.(If ‘and’ inserted = 2,660,000)
Of course not all hits will be important, but perhaps you can see a significance here, and this is only the tip of the iceberg
Bob: you’re right – the Ghosh article didn’t say all that. In fact, it used very imprecise phrasing:
Even the BBC doesn’t seem to have pushed it very hard.
Sorry ALL,
In my last post I wrote:
Perhaps I was too harsh in my suggested: “AKA guesswork”, and perhaps it could be mollified to:
“based on preferred or selected parameters”
Hi Peter,
Reur 2360: I am not going to fall into the trap of responding to your silly statements on irrelevant topics.
Give me your defense of the Hansen “delayed feedback” hypothesis instead, so we can keep this thread on topic.
Regards,
Max
Bob & Robin
As I said, I think that Pallab Ghosh is a good science reporter, very much in the mould of Whitehouse when he was at the BBC.
Some years ago, Southampton University launched a major media offensive to publicise ‘new research’ that showed that the MOC had slowed by 30% since 1992. They reckoned that this change in the Atlantic heat conveyor would cause another ice age in our part of the world, and pretty soon too. Of course they added that this was all being caused by global warming.
Pallab Ghosh reported the story for the BBC, but before he did so he contacted the Met Office and asked them what they thought. They said, in a nice piece of understatement, that if the MOC had slowed that dramatically then they might have noticed a fall in sea temperatures off Western Europe, but there was no trend for the period in question. This was before the Met Office became really ‘motivated’ where climate science was concerned.
Pallab put the quote from the Met Office in his report, and until this week I have only seen one piece from him on a climate related story. I assume that the BBC decided that Shukman, Harrabin, Watts and Black were more reliable.
There is a lot more to this story, which I want to write up sometime. Southampton got £26m over six years for the work. It was a huge story worldwide — without the Met Office comment of course — but over the next few months the oceanographers tore the findings and the methodology to pieces. Not even the IPCC took it seriously. I don’t remember the BBC reporting that.
This may be “old hat” to some of you, but for a thoughtful summary of his thoughts on the professional standards and responsibilities of science journalism, below is a link to an October 2007 speech by Pallab Ghosh.
{http}://www.wfsj.org/news/news.php?id=86
As president of the World Federation of Science Journalists, Ghosh tells his audience:
“Our job is not to simply be cheerleaders for science. It’s to report inconvenient truths.” [This is not a plug for an AGW film by Al Gore with a similar title.]
”What do I mean by that?
Here at this meeting it’s rightly a celebration of what science and technology have done for the world – and also to harness their potential to shape our societies. But an important part of that process is to examine detailed issues and policies critically.
And that’s done every day across the world in university coffee rooms, and at boardrooms in government meetings. These are often passionate, volatile debates and sometimes scathing indictments of individuals or approaches.
But where do those debates appear in the media? Pick up a paper or watch TV and radio – and you see how stem cells are going to cure the diseases of aging. Or how bio fuels or fusion are going to solve the problems of global warming.
Part of the problem is that our tradition as science journalists is to deferentially take single sourced stories – such as a report from a journal – and report it uncritically.
Or to take the word of government agencies – or corporate research funders.
It makes for good PR (public relations) but in the long run it doesn’t do anyone any favours – not to researches, not to our publications and certainly not the public. It distorts the real mature debates that are going on behind closed doors.
As an example there have been a series of papers published in respected journals on promising developments in adult stem cells. A closer look at the actual papers and cross checking with others in the field reveals that those developments aren’t as promising as their press releases claim. But these received near uncritical coverage across the world.
And that reporting threatens to jeopardise the easing of restrictions on publicly funded research on more promising embryonic stem cells in the US – and will make other countries think again about funding this controversial area.
And also governments and large organisations lie. They hide their mistakes. The Chinese Authorities covered up SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) for months. The United Kingdom’s Department for Food and Rural Affairs were warned about the poor state of the laboratory responsible for leaking the foot and mouth virus – that cost farmers millions of pounds – but they did nothing to fix the problem.
And the Journals need watching too. Who can forget MMR (measles, mumps and rubella vaccine) causes autism in The Lancet, Ecstasy rots your brain in Science, numerous claims of cloned human embryos in various publications – that turned out not to be true.
At the World Federation we want Science Journalists to be Journalists first and foremost. To ask the awkward questions, to be sceptical, and to bring people to account.
We’re doing this through a mentoring scheme called SjCOOP – which trains journalists in Africa and the Middle East to report on the expansion of the research based there. The scheme is to be hopefully expanded to South America and Asia.
We organise a conference – much like this one every two years – bringing science journalists from all over the world to raise our professional standards. The next one is to be in London in 2009. So if you’d like to get involved with that or help, then please speak to me.
To sum up I passionately believe that to fully harness science and technology for the benefit of society we need an informed and constructively critical media. It means that the dialogues with the public are the same ones that are being had behind closed doors in universities, government buildings and boardrooms.
Instead we often have a conversation akin to an indulgent parent speaking to a protesting child.
It’s time for us all – media, business and researchers alike to raise our game. It’s time for a mature debate.”
Responsible science journalists will do well to listen to Pallab Ghosh, whatever their personal views on AGW or other “crises” of the future, when he points to the need for “an informed and constructively critical media” and warns of simply taking “the word of government agencies – or corporate research funders”. Instead, he advises his audience of science journalists “To ask the awkward questions, to be sceptical, and to bring people to account.”
Sounds to me like good advice, very pertinent to the ongoing scientific debate surrounding AGW.
Max
Re Brute 2361
It would be interesting to see an update (beyond year 2000) of the total solar irradiance data from Judith Lean published by NCDC in the link.
Looking at published SORCE data (2003-2008), these show TSI at 1360.8 in 2008 compared to 1361.4 in 2003.
While the Lean data may not be directly comparable (SORCE may give lower results than other measurements), they show TSI of:
1366.7 (2000)
1366.6 (1990)
1366.6 (1980)
1366.3 (1970)
And for earlier years:
1365.4 (1930)
1364.5 (1900)
If anyone has another link to updated TSI data beyond 2000, this would be interesting to compare.
Max
I find it hard to believe that this got past the censors over at Wikipedia, (I believe that they sponsor this site). Almost a year now since we’ve been discussing this and more and more I find that the evidence to support Anthropomorphic Global Warming is flimsy at best.
No, I’m not a conspiracy driven type guy; however, the deeper that one reviews the assertions made by the Alarmists the more telling it is that this is all driven by politically influenced science, omission and money.
Unless the Alarmists somehow are able to link Capitalism or George Bush with Solar activity than I think their argument is pretty much dead. These guys either don’t want to believe that the Sun is driving the weather……errr climate….or they do believe it and can’t associate it with activities that they deem “immoral” or antithetical to their agenda….. therefore they omit it.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/e/ea/Carbon_Derived_Solar_Change.png
Image:Sunspot Numbers.png
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Sunspot_Numbers_png
Max,
I find this highlighted portion of the paragraph from your # 2367 frightening. I’m not a scientist; however I don’t believe that a scientist’s job is to “shape society”. In a democracy the people shape the society, not an oligarchy of Nimrod scientists.
Hi Peter,
We exchanged earlier posts about “Hadley hype”, which has unfortunately demonstrated that the Met Office is anything but objective and unbiased in its PR releases. Here is an example.
In January 2008, Reuters informed us that the Met Office predicted a colder year than previous years.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKL0314515220080103?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true
It turns out that the Hadley prediction for 2008 will be too high by around 0.07 degrees C (a significant deviation, when taking into account that the entire 23-year period from 1976 through 1998 only saw a linear rate of warming of around 0.16 degrees per decade). But, then again, “to err is human”.
The original article [and the rewording to eliminate “Hadley hype” promoting the AGW hypothesis] are shown below:
2008 to be in top 10 warmest years say forecasters
[2008 to be coldest year of millennium say forecasters]
2008 will be slightly cooler than recent years globally [will be the coldest year of the millennium globally] but will still be among the top 10 [top 12] warmest years on record since 1850 and should not be seen as a sign global warming was on the wane [and could represent an early signal that global warming is on the wane], British forecasters said.
The Met Office and experts at the University of East Anglia on Thursday said global average temperatures this year would be 0.37 [0.30] of a degree Celsius above the long-term 1961-1990 average of 14 degrees and be the coolest since 2000.
They said the forecast took into account the annual Pacific Ocean La Nina weather phenomenon which was expected to be particularly strong [expected to continue] this year and which would limit the warming trend [would continue the flat to cooling trend since 2001].
It also took account of rising atmospheric concentrations of so-called greenhouse gases, solar variations and natural changes in the ocean currents [as far as these are known today].
“The fact that 2008 is forecast to be cooler than any of the last seven years does not mean that global warming has gone away [could represent an early signal that global warming may be going away],” said Phil Jones, director of climate research at UEA.
“What matters is the underlying rate of warming – the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 degree C above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 degree C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000 [the period 2001-2007 showed no underlying rate of warming, and with the cooler forecast for 2008, the entire 8-year period will show an underlying rate of cooling rather than warming, as was the case from 1976 through 1998].”
La Nina and its opposite El Nino ocean-atmosphere phenomenon have strong influences on global temperatures. La Nina reduces the sea surface temperature by around 0.5 degrees Celsius while El Nino has the opposite effect.
“Phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina have a significant influence on global surface temperature and the current strong La Nina will act to limit temperatures in 2008,” said Chris Folland from the Met Office Hadley Centre.
“However mean temperature is still expected to be significantly warmer than in 2000, when a similar strength La Nina pegged temperatures to 0.24 degree C above the 1961-90 average [expected to be significantly cooler than in 1998, with a very strong El Nino pegged temperatures to 0.52 degree C above the 1961-90 average to produce the warmest year on record]. Sharply renewed warming is likely [is possible] once La Nina declines, [although this is anything but proven]” he added.
The current La Nina is now the strongest since 1999-2000. The lag between La Nina and the full global surface temperature response means that the cooling effect is expected to be a little greater in 2008 than it was during 2007 [with the balance of the significant drop of more than 0.1 degree C from 2007 to 2008 resulting from as yet unidentified causes].
The World Meteorological Organisation said last month there were indications that the 10 years from 1998 to 2007 were the hottest decade on record [despite the fact that warming appears to have stopped since 1998, or at the latest 2001].
The Met Office Hadley Centre said the top 11 [top 10] warmest years have all occurred in the last 13.
You see, Peter, when you take out all the “Hadley hype” the Met Office PR release sounds quite different.
Regards,
Max
Hi Brute,
I would agree that you are right that it is not the mission of a handful of scientists to “shape our society”.
I did not read that into the statement, “Here at this meeting it’s rightly a celebration of what science and technology have done for the world – and also to harness their potential to shape our societies.”
What I believe (and hope) Ghosh was trying to get across is that responsible science journalists should bring to the public an unbiased assessment in layman’s terms of what science and technology have done and can do for our society.
Yes, I agree, the danger is there that the personal opinions of the journalists will impact the objectivity of their reporting. If they accept without question reports by “government agencies” then they are not doing their job properly. A good example of this can be seen in all the reports by Reuters, The New York Times, etc. that simply parrot proclamations by IPCC (a “government agency” par excellence) as “scientific fact”. As I read Ghosh’s speech to the science journalists, he strongly opposes this approach.
But I fully agree with your statement, “I don’t believe that a scientist’s job is to “shape society”. In a democracy the people shape the society, not an oligarchy of Nimrod scientists.”
Regards,
Max
Oct 31, 2008
“Global Warming” Has Stopped
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ALL_SINCE_2002.jpg
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/monckton-global_warming_has_stopped.pdf
Max,
I love it. They’ve “taken into account” the solar variances and ocean currents when it supports their agenda but not when it doesn’t…..
Did you add the “to err is human” portion?
Let’s see……Let’s feed the world a lie in order to rearrange the entire world economy and when our prophesizes don’t come to pass, we’ll just publish a memo stating: Whoops! we screwed up….sorry!
Meanwhile, people are starving to death because we thought it was a good idea to burn our food.
Unbelievable.
Thanks for your #2355 Max.
I thought you all might be interested in the following which takes the work I did on temperatures and CO2 levels a little further.
Below is link 1) to Beck’s’ work where he identified C02 peaks around the years 1825 1857 and 1942.
Link 1) http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-163931.html
IN my # 2321 I posted actual CET records dating back to 1660
Link 2) http://www.leif.org/research/CET1.png
I also posted CO2 levels as used by the IPCC
Link3) http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.html
Charles Keeling first recorded modern CO2 levels in 1958. If you look along the two axis of temperature and CO2 on 2) and 3) this indicates that when he first started recording the gas in 1958 they should have read around 315ppm –if you look at Keelings’ actual work on;
Link 4) http://online.wsj.com/media/SJ-keeling_curve.jpg
It can be seen this was exactly what he measured (this was a notably cold period and presumably explains the low levels of CO2).
Look at link 2) and 3) together (yes they’re worth printing out!). The various temperature spikes (prior to 1958) dating back to the early 1700’s clearly happened at levels around 280ppm (according to the IPCC chart) so it is reasonable to assume that either low levels of CO2 has no effect at all on historic high temperatures, or the historic CO2 measurements are wrong.
However, if you mark a point at the vertical temperature line on link 2) of Beck’s C02 spikes of 1825 1857 and 1942 the correlation is exact, apparently showing that CO2 levels rise and fall naturally by substantial amounts. So Keeling was correct in 1958 in his measurements, but did not look at the historic context when he would have seen that temperature spikes, followed by CO2 increases are very common and presumably –if it were possible-could be traced back through our history.
Keelings obituary is here, and he seems blameless in his diligent recording of accurate CO2 levels from 1958.
Link 5 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/science/23keeling.html
Some might query why such readings should be taken on top of an active volcano (resulting in numerous adjustments) and why the well recorded observations of the levels of the gas taken by perfectly reputable scientists for 150 years did not figure more prominently in his work.
This latter question is answered in this link;
Link 6 http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=author:%22KEELING%22+intitle:%22Atmospheric+Carbon+Dioxide+in+the+19th+Century%22+&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholarr
Assuming that no one else is stupid enough to spend $10- as I have just done- to download the document, it appears that Keeling dismissed works by previous scientists using perfectly respectable methodology as follows;
‘…but all the data are of questionable accuracy and data before 1870 are hopelessly unreliable.’
A variety of people have considered historic CO2 levels.
Link 7 http://www.pensee-unique.fr/001_mwr-083-10-0225.pdf Giles Slocum
Link 8 http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_10-19/2007-11/pdf/38_711_science.pdf Z Jaworowski
Link 9 http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hertzberg.pdf M Hertzberg
Link 10 http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/science/defreitas.pdf C R De freitas
Link 11 A very comprehensive data base of CO2 studies is here.
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/10182495-HesDDB/10182495.PDF
One of the above studies dates back to 1955, but it is fair to say that in the modern era Keelings’ high profile work from 1958 eclipsed them.
It was not until Ernst Beck in 2007 that comprehensive research was done into historic co2 measurements.
Beck’s major papers are here “180 Years of atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods (Energy & Environment, Vol 18 No. 2, 2007)”,
Link 12 http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf Ernst Beck
Various other papers from him are here;
Link 13 http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm
This link from a Berlin climate conference at which Beck spoke suggests Keeling was aware of historic readings but discounted them
Link 14 http://www.iuf-berlin.de/events/288.php
“Mr. Beck presented overwhelming evidence how selective Charles Keeling, who is considered a pioneer of modern CO2 measurement, was in his use of historic CO2 data in order to construct a correlation between CO2-levels and temperature. According to Mr. Beck, there are no scientific reasons to omit older but very precise carbon measurements of prominent researchers such as de Saussure, Robert Bunsen, Max von Pettenkofer, Albert Krogh (Nobel Prize 1920) or Otto Warburg (Nobel Prize 1931).”
Keelings’ own words (link 6) appear to show he believed them to be unreliable but did not explain why.
Link 15 http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-163931.htm
The above link leads to abstracts of Beck’s work and various critiques of them.
What is apparent is that Keeling chose to ignore-for whatever reason-numerous studies by peers which appear to show CO2 levels to be substantially higher in the 19th century than is currently believed.
The modern certainty-promulgated by Charles Keeling- that the pre industrial level of CO2 was around 280ppm and has rapidly escalated- due to man’s emissions- to unprecedented levels, has had a fundamental impact on climate science by influencing Al Gore, James Hansen, Dr Mann and the IPCC.
CO2 has been a controversial subject for many years. Roger Revelle was Charles Keeling’s boss at the Scripps institution and the mentor of Al Gore. They had a falling out about Revelle’s beliefs that the gas was not as harmful as Gore had proclaimed in his 1992 book ‘Earth in the balance’. Accusations of Revelle becoming senile prompted a public apology from Gores side in 1994.
Link 16 http://www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=58e0c50c-1631-46ca-8719-778c0973526e&k=86612&p=1
Increased CO2 is said to go hand in hand with temperature rises to current ‘unprecedented’ levels. Consequently the existence of high temperatures in mans history is strenuously denied (Dr Mann and the IPCC) and the CO2 levels relating to our past calculated to be much lower than current values by ignoring large volumes of high quality historic research (Charles Keeling)
The first part of the twin pillars of modern climate science -CO2- has been examined. With regards to historic temperatures-back to 1660 with Hadley CET instrumental records- and the known existence of warm periods during Medieval times, the Roman period plus various Holocene warm episodes, it should be asked how the modern deconstruction of previous known history has come about.
Link 17 Is an actual paper on medieval temperatures produced by Dr Mann who declared-to the surprise of thousands of historians that ‘the MWP is an outdated concept.’ This removal of the MWP was made so that Dr Mann could construct his infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph, an icon of the IPCC until it was dumped by them in 2007 having been thoroughly discredited.
Link 17 http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/medclimopt.pdf
I suspect Max will be horrified (as I was) at the casual repudiation of the MWP based on out of context or incomplete studies by a few scientists at variance with the overwhelming majority of historians and thousands of records and contemporary accounts showing the MWP and Roman warm period- amongst others- to be warmer than present.
Link 18 Here we find no less a pairing than Phil Jones and Dr Mann collaborating in an attempt to diminish the importance of the MWP.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2003b/mann2003b.html
Earlier, a 1000 year temperature reconstruction was published by Mann with Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, “Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations” American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 26, No. 6, p.759 (1999). This was dated just a year after the release of the Hockey stick.
In this sorry saga we have Dr Mann, who obviously didn’t like what history was telling him and changed it so he could construct his since discredited ‘Hockey sticks’; Charles Keeling who was bang on with his measurements from 1958 but omitted to take a historic perspective either, and Roger Revelle- grandfather of global warming- who in 1994 received a belated public apology after Gore had declared him senile for not enthusiastically endorsing his own views of the effects of CO2. Gore himself had written a book in 1992 ‘Earth in the Balance’ in which he cited numerous well researched examples of climate change impacting on past civilisations-his point being that they were a lesson to us should we change climate by increasing CO2 levels. It appears that Dr Mann was not sent a complimentary copy as he ignored this research and all the other material available to him. So the twin pillars of climate science are shown to be highly suspect.
Temperature rises first, followed by Co2 levels (Science magazine) If Beck’s work is correct it appears that previous warm periods dating back to 1825 -as shown in actual recorded temperatures by Hadley CET- are as a result of naturally increased CO2 (coupled with changes to water vapour-the overwhelming greenhouse gas). Presumably our other warm periods can also be traced back to this combination (caused by increased solar activity?) It seems that when temperatures subsequently cooled naturally, plant growth reduced and CO2 decreased, thereby depressing temperatures further. As 90% of CO2 has a half life of 40 years, its natural decay- combined with reduced plant growth- would further diminish CO2 levels and temperatures-perhaps accounting for the sharp drop that follows every high temperature spike back to our earliest records in 1660.
Incidentally I am currently compiling a digital version of my hand drawn material where I combined the graphs in links 2) and 3) above. I shall post a copy when it is finished-it is very revealing.
TonyB
You know, some things ought to be left alone. Short sighted policies developed due to pressure from lunatic environmental wackos has caused this. Mark my words, next we’ll start to see reports of outbreaks of disease caused by all of the filth left lying around due to “green” policies designed to protect the habitat, mating habits and “rights” of sewer rats.
After that the eco-chondriacs will limit the amount of bathing in order to save water and curtail “global warming”.
I’ll let your collective imaginations run wild with the possibile outcomes………….
Rat infestation threatens UKhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/global/2008/10/27/noindex/rat.xml