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.
TonyN Reur 2366, you wrote in part:
To your first point, and what with Max’s and Robin’s comments etc, I agree, Pallab (PB) seems to be a good reporter. Nevertheless, I think he could have better clarified to “ordinary people” in the recent report, that computer modelling is only an indication of what might occur, and it does not mean that it IS. (Does not PROVE anything)
Also, do I sense an implication that PB withdrew from commenting on AGW for quite a while? I suspect there may be a story behind this alone that has not got a lot to do with science!
PeterM,
May I draw your careful attention in all the detail in 2366 to the politics of granting a lot of money to Southampton (Well over AU$ 50 million) to research some nonsense over a period of SIX years ? Amongst other things, it would seem that there was no scientific value in it.
Since you seem to be implying recently that the politics of AGW are more important than the science itself, perhaps you could give us your wisdom on this particular episode?
To All:
One of these days, I might sit-down and write-up something on the cabal of Dear’ol Phil Jones and Michael E Mann, and their sidekicks, such as Bradley, Hughes, Briffa, Osborn, Ogilvie, Schweingruber, and more.
There is a particularly entertaining explanation of the dendro-divergence problem by Bradley back in 1998. (Which in itself, destroys the “Hockey-stick”)
Under the heading Climate change at the poles IS man-made, today’s Independent on Sunday carries a major article by its Science Editor, Steve Connor, on the “Stotty” report on Antarctic temperatures. Mr Connor’s comments are unequivocal and alarming:
But Peter Stott himself is less positive:
And Andrew Monaghan of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado has a cautious comment on the research:
Hi TonyB
Have had a chance to go through all the info you posted (2374), in particular with regard to pre-Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 concentrations plus your link to early temperature swings.
Your correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature becomes apparent, with temperature rising before CO2 does (as has been seen from longer-range paleoclimate studies).
I have seen the earlier study of Ernst Beck on early CO2 measurements, which shows several peaks, with at least one peak exceeding 400 ppmv in the 19th and early 20th century.
In the paper “The Manipulated CO2 Story” (in German), Beck points to measurements by Pettenkofer (1864-64: 330 to 440 ppmv) and others in a curve that goes back to year 1810 and shows two other peaks above 350 ppmv: 1820-25: 440 ppmv; 1940-45: 430 ppmv, with HadCrut3 temperatures superimposed.
In the paper you cited, Beck appears to have done a good job questioning the validity of the Keeling assumption on pre-1958 concentrations. In particular he has effectively refuted the notion based on Antarctic ice core proxy data that there was a smooth gradual increase from around 280 ppmv in 1800 to 315 ppmv in 1957 (first Mauna Loa value).
The most damning part of Beck’s analysis is in the paper where he demonstrates that Keeling ignored or discarded as “incorrect” (or “inconvenient”?) the actual physical measurements from most of the published pre-1958 studies (i.e. those that did not support his conclusion of a smooth gradual increase), in favor of proxy ice core data.
The two most appalling omissions by Keeling are from recent pre-1958 times: 1940-1947 wet chemical measurements showing actually measured CO2 levels between 350 and 470 ppmv and the 1947-48 Point Barrow series of 330 samples/year, ranging from 345 to 500 ppmv, with an average of 420 ppmv.
Now there is an interesting observation. I had previously looked at the Hadley data, in particular the late 19th century warming cycle (from 1858 to around 1879) and the early 20th century warming cycle (from 1910 to 1944), and compared these to the change in atmospheric CO2 as read off of the pre-1958 data published in IPCC (based on ice core proxy studies). See attached chart.
These show very little correlation.
If we now use Beck’s actual pre-1958 CO2 numbers (rather than those from ice core proxy studies), the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature look more convincing (as Beck’s composite curve shows).
It raises another perplexing “chicken and egg” question for supporters of the AGW hypothesis, however.
Did the warming come first (as was seen on many longer term paleoclimate records)? Or did the CO2 come first, thereby causing the temperature rise (per the greenhouse hypothesis)?
If it is the former, the CO2/temperature correlation, which forms the basis for the entire AGW hypothesis of CO2 causation for increased temperature, is no longer valid, and other correlations (de-gassing from warmer oceans?) seem more appropriate.
If it is the latter, it raises the question: “from where did the added atmospheric CO2 come (during the 1858-1879 “horse and buggy days” as well as the 1910-1944 “minor human CO2 emission years” before the post WWII boom and increase in human energy consumption).
Either way you slice it, this presents a real dilemma for supporters of the AGW hypothesis.
So the best thing to do (as IPCC has done) is to ignore the fluctuating actually measured and recorded pre-1958 CO2 data and replace it with a slowly increasing curve based on Antarctic ice core proxy data.
In order to justify this, of course, Ernst Beck gets written off as a “nut” outside the “scientific mainstream” by the pro-AGW blogsites.
I’d be interested to hear if you agree with my observations.
Regards,
Max
Robin your #2377
Please look at my post #2374. By following the lioks you will be able to see the Arctic story in much better historic context. Recorded Temperatures have been up and down like a yo yo since 1660 including temperatures as high as today. However the co2 levels in past warming episodes were claimed to be only 280ppm. Folow the links to Becks research where numerous credible scientists from the 19th century -including nobel prize winners- took co2 reading comparable to today.
Either they are wrong- in which case historic temperatures have increased to current levels irrespective of low co2 levels; Or the historic co2 readings are too low, in which case the correlation between past and current warm episiodes experienced at similar co2 levels can be clearly seen.
Keeling is being accused of cherry picking and discounting previous rcords in order to prove his hypotheses that the modern era shows unprecdented rises due to man made emissions.
A record of previous historic measurements and the ones Keeling selected can be seen here. As I said in my previous post I paid $10 to download a paper from Keeling in which he clearly discounts previous records.
http@//www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051407.htm
TonyB
Links for TonyB – remove {parentheses}
Hadley Cycles with Equations 1850-2008
{http}://farm3.static.flickr.com/2332/2656244893_e6c9d7fe01_b.jpg
Correlation between CO2 and Temperature
{http}://farm4.static.flickr.com/3033/2614626004_591a1a939e_b.jpg
Max your #2378 appeared after I posted my #2379 so this last post of mine is additional to the information I previously posted. I think we thoroughly agree with each other.
TonyB
Hi Peter,
You noted earlier, “the effect of the recession will be to reduce the demand for oil, gas, coal etc and therefore reduce CO2 emissions.”
I would agree that you are 100% correct.
Conversely, the effect of a drastic forced reduction in “the demand for oil, gas, coal etc and therefore reduced CO2 emissions” would be to induce a major recession (or depression) on the world’s economy.
It is for this reason (and particularly now that the economy is shaky on its own) that I agree wholeheartedly with Robin that this will not happen, despite a few “pie in the sky” dreamers and the highly financed pressure by IPCC, other politicians and media.
What do you think?
Regards,
Max
Max,
Very good. I’m certain that Peter will disagree as this makes too much sense.
Playing the devil’s advocate, the Alarmist position would be that the economy will instead thrive due to a transition from gasoline powered automobiles to imaginary solar powered cars or windmills that work intermittently which are backed up by conventional oil/gas generators which cost 10 times more per kilowatt thus increasing tax revenues to the State.
Max
My #2379 had one link to the Beck figure. It is repeated here with an additional one. The first link leads to the raw data of the measurements 1812-2004 in a graphical form
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/003893.html
THe next link shows the actual measurements -represented as dots- with the cherry picked data used by Keeling ringed-these show the slope upwards of co2 that then supported his upwards only trend that he recorded from 1958. The trend he shows is not apparent if the full extent of the data is examined.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051407.htm
TonyB
TonyB: re your #2379, I hope you don’t think I was supporting (#2377) the position taken by Steve Connor in today’s Indie. My point was to show how the result of a rather vague model-based study (“detection … of a human influence) can be used by a journalist to spin an alarmist line: “humans are responsible for the significant increases in temperatures”.
Robin #2385
I fully understand your position-I agree with you that vague studies often get promoted to far greater importance than they deserve and take on a ‘sciemtifc’ mantle they don’t warrant
My post was to merely point out that we have reliable Hadley CET temperature records even during the Little ice age that demonstrate periods as warm as today-either at 280ppm-according to Keeling- or more like 380ppm if you believe numerous measurements made in the 19th century. Either way, it makes nonsense of the ‘unprecedented’ bit without going all the way back to the MWP
I hope to post an electronic version if the graphs I referred to in links 2) and 3) of my post by the end of the week which will make the position clearer.
TonyB
TonyB: you may enjoy this comprehensive debunking of a piece of irresponsible journalism about the Arctic.
Nice link Robin. There is more nonsense talked about the Arctic warming than any other AGW subject,I did a thorough study of it some 6 months ago and realised it was a far more fragile ice sheet than we realised, that melted frequently. The last time was during the 1930’s/40’s when film was actually taken by adventurer Bob Morrisey, see link
http://www.ernestina.org/history/1931.html
The Aug 10th 1932 diary extract reads;
‘about noon the entire face of the glacier- almost a mile in length and six or eight feet deep- slid off with a roar and a rumble…’
Sounds familiar doesn’t it? His expeditions can be bought on video as he recorded them for Pathe newsreel.
TonyB
Max and Brute,
The first thing to appreciate is that all recessions and depressions that have occurred previously, have been entirely due to human nature. They are not imposed on us from any ‘higher authority’. If house prices are currently falling, or the stock market is crashing, or unemployment is increasing, it is probably not due to high energy costs. Although having said that, it is possible that the spike in oil prices in June and July was the trigger that caused the current panic, but if it hadn’t been that, it would have been something else sooner or later.
It is likely that low oil prices are only temporary. They may have halved in the last few months but that does not mean that demand has halved or even that supply has doubled. There would have been only a few percentage change in both. The price reflects the state of the world economy. So when the economy improves the price will rise again. It may rise anyway if production falls.
It might be interesting to ask what would happen to the price of oil, if the net users agreed to impose a 10% tax which could be used to seriously finance alternatives to oil. Would the price of oil everywhere rise by 10%? If the supply stayed the same and the demand stayed the same then the total price, including the new tax, would also have to be the same.
It would mean that the oil importing countries would get more, the oil exporting countries would get less and the oil companies would get less. The tax revenue could be spent constructively, by the industrialised countries, to ease the recession.
Pete,
I paid $2.21 per gallon today which works out to $57.46 per fill up for my primary vehicle. I was paying $4.00 per gallon last summer for a savings of $46.54 per week…..$186.16 per month, $2233.92 per year.
This savings, (which I would have otherwise used to purchase gasoline) will allow the Brute family purchase goods other than gasoline which will in turn stimulate other businesses allowing them to hire more people, expand their businesses and so on.
The only thing raising taxes will do is breed resentment and contribute more money to the black hole of government bureaucracy…….wasted.
Adjust carbon tax to lift burden on poor, think-tank says (Canadian Press)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081031.wbccarbon31/BNStory/National/home
Brute,
Yes a lot of people think along the same lines. I would argue that they just haven’t thought about it hard enough!
For instance, if every industrialised country had subsidised oil products when the price was sky high last June, the demand for oil would have been even higher than it was. That would have meant that prices would have risen even more. It would have been OPEC, not the oil consumers, who would have effectively pocketed the subsidy.
Of course a tax works in the opposite way to a subsidy. Just as a 10% subsidy would act to increase prices by, I would say, pretty close to 10%, so a 10% tax would act to reduce oil prices by pretty clsoe to 10 % too.
Of course all the industrialised countries of the world would have to act together. Effevtively it may be considered to be ‘auction ring’ which are also usually considered to be illegal. Cartels are usually considered to be illegal too. But, if OPEC can operate as a cartel, then it is not unreasonable for the buyers to act in unison too.
I notice that since TonyB has arrived on the scene that you are now going in for really hard-core XXX rated climate change denialist material.
Apparently CO2 levels were much higher in the past few thousand years? OK. I see.
You might want to consider that this argument does itself undermine what is certainly the most pertinent objection to Mann’s hockey stick. viz that tree ring data used by him is more a proxy for CO2 levels in the atmosphere than temperature. Most sceptics, together with mainstream science, would consider that a graph of CO2 levels plotted out for the past couple of thousand years would indeed look like a hockey stick.
Which brings me back to a question Robin raised a while back. Mainstream science would decide these sort of questions by a process of discussion leading to an emerging consensus. How do you guys go about it?
TonyB and Max,
You have made some big and very interesting posts above, that I have only had time to flick-through rather more quickly than I would prefer, and I’m not sure that a I took it all in.
Whatever; concerning discussion on historical-chemical versus Moana Loa (ML) IR recently published CO2 levels, I would like to mention that one of my heroes in the “Climate Change Debate” is Steve (Stephen) McIntyre. I have not checked to see if he has recently changed his position, but basically a few months ago, as I understood it, he was not prepared to discuss the historical record on CO2, I believe because he sees it as a MINEFIELD. For instance, I think there is data around to show that downwind of heavy industry areas, the local CO2 levels are temporally much higher than in the opposite condition. On the other hand, although most of the anthropogenic CO2 is generated in the NH, the normally published global average is given on a VOLCANIC island at over 3,000m altitude, in the mid-Pacific in the SH. (And many BIG questions can be asked about that, SUCH AS; varying local SST‘s and absorptivity!)
I’m fairly sure that it was Zbigniew Jarowoski (ZJ) that did a study to show that ML is far from an ideal site to measure CO2, because of the polluting car-park below it, volcanic emissions, varying (absorptive) ocean surface T’s, and whatnot. (No problem, just as with GISS and Hadley T’s; various “desirable corrections” can be applied)
ZJ has also shown that certain assumptions by the “Church” on gas bubbles entrapped in ice-cores are a bit sus‘. (I’ve done a bit of study on this and can add to it)
TonyB, have you checked Petr Chylek’s stuff?
I’m running out of time, so no time for intended introductions, but please check the following out, and make allowances for translations: (Remove { })
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha 24 April 2007
by Jean Laherrere
Climate Change: some graphs and doubts
{http}://www.hubbertpeak.com/laherrere/climatechange200704.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CO2 monthly mean at Mauna Loa leveling off, dropping? « Watts Up …
6 Apr 2008 … Here we see how Mauna Loa CO2 has lagged in its annual rise. …… which would be in accord with Jarowoski ’s criticisms. …
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/04/06/co2-monthly-mean-at-mauna-loa-leveling-off/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://aspofrance.viabloga.com/files/JL_climate_2007_eng_Part2.pdf
Re: #2367, Max
I missed Pallab Ghosh’s very hard-hitting speech to the WFSJ – archived, thanks!
If I have given the impression that I was criticising him, then this was not what I intended; it is the BBC’s editorial policy on AGW that concerns me. Once group think, the herd instinct, peer pressure, PC (or whatever term you choose to use) is established in a large organisiation, it becomes impossible to follow the very obvious precepts that Pallab Ghosh set out in his speech. Surely one of the more notable things about what he said is that he seems to have felt the need to present his case with only one tangential reference to climate change when that topic was so clearly the elephant in the room, and the most obvious example that he could have used to develop his thesis.
Re: 2392, Peter
I don’t want to bring the Hockey Stick back into this thread at the moment as it had a good run recently but, as I understand it, there is common ground among dendrologists that some trees yield good proxy temperature data and others yield good Co2 proxies and a lot of them can yield both at different times, as well as being subject to changes in precipitation, soil chemistry, surrounding vegetation and more. The controversy over the Hockey Stick is centred on the way in which data are selected and the statistical techniques used to produce long term historic temperature reconstructions from them.
Hi Peter,
You wrote: “Apparently CO2 levels were much higher in the past few thousand years? OK. I see.
You might want to consider that this argument does itself undermine what is certainly the most pertinent objection to Mann’s hockey stick. viz that tree ring data used by him is more a proxy for CO2 levels in the atmosphere than temperature. Most sceptics, together with mainstream science, would consider that a graph of CO2 levels plotted out for the past couple of thousand years would indeed look like a hockey stick.”
Let’s analyze this statement in detail.
CO2 levels were indeed higher than today in pre-historic times, as Al Gore’s beautiful graphs showed. So were temperatures from time to time, and they usually preceded the higher CO2 levels by some 800 years on average. So much for paleoclimate proxies (which I believe the record has shown are dicey data, at best).
Now for recent historical times. Ernst Beck has done a formidable job of gathering all sorts of data on atmospheric CO2 analyses, going back to the early 19th century. The analytical methods used then are based on the same basic chemistry that is known to be valid today, and estimates show that results (using 19th century equipment) have an accuracy range of ±3%, so cannot be arbitrarily discarded because they are “suspect” or “old”.
The most recent data in the Beck series are based on wet analyses made in 1940 to 1947 showing CO2 levels of 350 to 470 ppmv and a series of 330 samples/year using modern analytical methods at Point Barrow, Alaska over the period 1947-1948, showing results ranging from 345 to 420 ppmv. Despite the fact that these measurements were made in recent times with modern methods, they were also discarded by Keeling (because they did not fit into his paradigm of a gradually increasing CO2 concentration since human industrialization started).
So we can conclude (as Beck has) that the pre-1958 Keeling curve (based on Antarctic ice core proxies and supported by those analytical results cherry-picked by Keeling, which fit into his paradigm) is an artifact. Beck’s graph (which I have copied) shows this pretty clearly. The first graph shows the results compiled by Beck and the second graph shows those that were “cherry-picked” to support the smooth gradual curve based in ice core proxy studies.
{http}://farm4.static.flickr.com/3296/2998402163_c7c41e942b_b.jpg
{http}://farm4.static.flickr.com/3164/2998408805_4f3801d3d8_b.jpg
As far as the Mann study is concerned, you wrote, “You might want to consider that this argument does itself undermine what is certainly the most pertinent objection to Mann’s hockey stick”.
Wrong, Peter. The “most pertinent objection to Mann’s hockey stick” has nothing whatsoever to do with atmospheric CO2 levels; it has to do with sloppy science. Mann’s hockey stick was discredited for statistical errors and for cherry-picking. If you are truly interested, you can check both Steve McIntyre’s work as well as Carl Wegman’s report to the U.S. Congress on this.
Now to your final point, “Most sceptics, together with mainstream science, would consider that a graph of CO2 levels plotted out for the past couple of thousand years would indeed look like a hockey stick.”
First of all, Peter, this is a totally unsubstantiated statement.
Secondly, it is unimportant what “most sceptics, together with mainstream science, would consider”. Ernst Beck has gathered the best data available on atmospheric CO2 levels since the early 19th century and they do, indeed, show fluctuations. If “most sceptics, along with mainstream science” are ignorant about 19th and early 20th century CO2 analyses, so be it.
The real dilemma for AGW-proponents is that of the “chicken and the egg”.
In long-term paleoclimate studies it is clear that temperature increase (or decrease) leads CO2 increase (or decrease). Al Gore fell on his face on this one by trying to use the curves to show that CO2 was the temperature driver, when his own charts showed exactly the opposite.
There is a good (and scientifically accepted) theory of why warmer global temperatures would cause de-gasification of CO2 dissolved in the oceans, thereby naturally raising the atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
There is no plausible anthropogenic explanation for rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 levels in the early 20th century as recorded by the data collected by Beck. It has to be from a non-anthropogenic source.
At the same time (from 1910 to around 1944) there had been a major warming of our planet, based on the Hadley record; this warming represented a linear warming of 0.53°C as has been reported in the literature and confirmed by IPCC AR4.
Did anthropogenic CO2 cause this warming? IPCC says that the cause of the warming is uncertain (based on the pre-1958 ice core data on CO2 concentrations), but if one accepts Beck’s data on CO2 levels of 345 to 500 ppmv in the late 1940s, it could be a valid question.
The only question then is “from where did this added CO2 originate?”
It is clearly not from human emissions (that had been very limited over this period and were, in fact, just beginning to accelerate with the post WWII economic boom).
So could the temperature increase have come first (partially from solar effects, as established by solar scientists, and partially from as yet unknown natural factors)?
And could these warmer temperatures have caused a natural degassing of CO2 from the slightly warmer oceans?
Could the measured more rapid increase in sea levels over the first half of the 20th century have also been caused by thermal expansion of a warming ocean?
These are all open questions, Peter, and they all raise serious doubt about the validity of AGW as the principal driver of 20th century warming.
We know from direct observation that IPCC, a political/bureacratic organization, presents its “scientific findings” in such a light as to accentuate the importance of anthropogenic factors in the observed 20th century warming, with even more drastic projections for the future based on the virtual world of computer models. This is quite normal, because it is their brief to determine how important the role of AGW really is, so if it is unimportant, there is no further need for IPCC to exist.
Why Keeling cherry-picked data to prove a point is a more difficult question to answer (particularly now that he is no longer alive). I would say that it is easy to fall into the trap (as with Michael Mann) of simply saying that he was a scientific charlatan who purposely and wittingly cherry-picked the data he needed to prove his point. But I would argue for a more nuanced reasoning on this.
Yes, they both cherry-picked, and so they violated the basic principals of “good science”. But they may have done this unwittingly, because the data points they discarded simply did not fit within their established paradigm. They may have seen them as meaningless “outliers” or “anomalies” based on purely local variations (as has been suggested in retrospect as a rationalization) or they may actually have been physically unable to see them.
For a good treatise on paradigms and how they can both help as well as hinder the scientific process, read Thomas Kuhn.
While I am skeptical of the results of both Keeling and Mann, since they have been shown to be false, I would be more charitable in assessing their motives. They were not charlatans; they both just fell into Kuhn’s “paradigm” trap.
Regards,
Max
Max your #2396
I posted both those graphs under #2384 yesterday. They are good graphs and it is very instructive to look at the background information, as you will have done.
For Peters benefit he might like to re read my #2374 which gave 18 links which gave the extensive background detail chapter and verse. As mentioned I also paid $10 to download a 1978 paper by Keeling so I could read his actual words, rather than those from a potentially biased third party such as Beck. I quoted Keeling verbatim. In essence he selected data that supported his rising co2 hypotheses but discounted material that didnt, even though exactly the same methodology was used. Its all there in the factual links I gave. If Peter wants to spend $10 he can also download Keelings papers when he made his comments about data unreliability.
As you say Max, the Beck data is not invented (just overlooked)and he is aware- as we all are- of the potential for contamination. This is explored by Eli Rabett in the link below;
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/03/beckies-as-tonstant-weader-knows-eli.html
The point is that measuring co2 was a very common occurence in Victorian and later times. It was the age of science after all. Their methods were very slightly less accurate than todays but that only makes a difference of a few ppm. The logical conclusion is that;
Either temperatures were high in the Hadley CET sequence back to 1660 because a low level of 280ppm has no relationship to high temperatures.
OR
The historic co2 measurements of 280ppm wwere wrong and we have always had fluctuating co2 levels that rival todays.
That is perhaps not surprising when you consider than mans impact on co2 is a fraction of that supplied by Nature- 30 gigatons a year compared to 600.
http://co2sceptics.com/faqs.php?id=196
I had never heard of this website before and chose the link only because it is so succinct-it does however lead to a treasure trove of ‘faqs’ but whether they are faqs er not I will start to investigate later.
TonyB
Hi TonyB,
Eli Rabbet’s “GOGI” blurb on Ernst Beck’s studies was funny (y0ur #2397). Regardless of content, the anonymous gent has a way with words.
Of course he got rave reviews from other anonymous AGW-groupies, such as Tamino.
But Rabett is a bit less exact with (cherry-) picking data. By quoting 19th century downtown Paris figures to prove that Beck’s numbers are distorted by local conditions, Rabett failed to mention the 330 measurement series from 1947-1948, which showed CO2 values well above 400 ppmv taken at Point Barrow, Alaska. Yep, that’s right, Point Barrow, Alaska, 515 km north of the Arctic Circle.
PB has a population today of 4,400; in 1940, however, the population was 400. Not much chance of urban or industrial distortion of the CO2 record here, but Eli Rabett preferred to ignore these data in favor of the 19th century Paris data.
Looks like ER is every bit as good a cherry picker as Keeling or Mann!
(But I’ll admit that he is great with words, just a bit weak with facts.)
Regards,
Max
Peter #2392 said;
“I notice that since TonyB has arrived on the scene that you are now going in for really hard-core XXX rated climate change denialist material.”
Over the last few weeks I have quoted verbatim from -or made links to- orginal information by;
The Scripps institution,
Hadley Centre.
CET figures,
Cdiac
Met office,
Proudman observatory,
Numerous UK govt departments including Defra and the Environment Agency,
The EU
The EU Marine Agency
Exeter Climate conference
Berlin Climate conference
Abstracts from each of the four IPCC assesments
The IPCC summary for policymakers
IPCC authors assesmemts
Al Gores Earth in the Balance
Dr Manns papers on medieaval temperatures James Hansen
Nasa
Cyrosphere
Desmogblog
Eli Rabbet
Real Climate
I have also driven 400 miles to see Dr Iain Stewart present his views on climate change and spent money on material from Charles Keeling. If you believe these to be hard core denialist material perhaps you can direct me to those that display a hard core alarmist bias so I can take a more balanced view of the subject.
TonyB
Back again, TonyB,
A good (if simplified) explanation of our planet’s carbon cycle is given in:
Link: http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm
Unfortunately, the IPCC assumptions on CO2, its impact on climate and man’s culpability are even more simplified (to the point of absurdity?), i.e. (a) human CO2 emissions are the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, as measured (since 1958) at Mauna Loa and as estimated by ice core proxy studies prior to 1958 and (b) increased atmospheric CO2 is the principal driver of observed warming and other climate changes (in the late 20th century) and of projected model-based future warming and climate changes.
So simple a 10-year old schoolchild can understand it.
But is it true?
Regards,
Max