CO2 has very little impact on the climate. Who cares if the measurements are accurate?
After documenting deceit in hard sciences, like nuclear and stellar physics, there is indeed little purpose in arguing about accuracy of atmospheric CO2 measurements.
The Congressional Space Science & Technology Committee was asked to explain these changes:
They care Steve, that’s the problem I think.
Suppose CO2 is not increasing as NOAA says, then all their models would be based on a lie (another one), because they need increased CO2 to make the connection with human activity.
I agree that CO2 has no warming effect on climate, but they need CO2 to continue their hoax.
I have no problem to accept that CO2 is increasing, but I find a bit suspicious that they’re using a sample from a very limited region (Hawaii) to conclude about the presence of the gas in the entire world, and their “sinusoidal + parabola” data is very different from anything else I’ve seen of climate data so far. It’s hard to believe it’s a legitimate account of the seasonal variation of CO2 worldwide.
It’s a model, you know that, then how can we really trust the data, knowing how much they manipulate all other data related with climate?
It’s not clear to me that this is not relevant, having in sight the correlation you found in your previous post.
My point is, they need the CO2 to increase as it’s shown in the Mauna Loa data. If the (supposedly) real CO2 variation is different it could possibly indicate other climatic influences, than human activity, and they don’t want that to happen.
For example, if (supposedly) CO2 had a period of stagnation or decrease that certainly could not be attributed to human activity, but to natural oscillations due to plant absorption, etc., and they’d have to admit another hole in their scheme.
Another example, they say that the Atlantic ocean has had a trend towards higher temps- due to global warming, of course- and therefore the AMO anomalies must be detrended to have the correct index, but the PDO doesn’t have this detrended definition, as far as I know. The two oceans are *not* independent masses of water, then how can “global warming” be affecting one mass but not the other?
I’m open to learn with my mistakes here, because I started to research about climate only a few years ago, but this seems to make no sense either.
They seem to be using in their models their own hypothesis in a kind *circular logic*, which is obviously unfounded if CO2 is not causing (as we know it’s not) the recent warming of the climate.
It’s in Nature so is paywalled but the abstract gives the idea –
The money quote from David Butman & Peter A. Raymond’s letter is
Here, we estimate the amount of carbon degassed from streams and rivers in the United States using measurements of temperature, alkalinity and pH, together with high-resolution data on the morphology and surface area of these waterways. We show that streams and rivers in the US are supersaturated with carbon dioxide when compared with the atmosphere, emitting 97±32 Tg carbon each year.
I also have some other quotes attributed to him from different paper about Arctic sea ice.
What got me there was this free paper (downloadable pdf) from the American Meteorological Society, and the comments made on page 149 in the blue box headed ECHOS.
Do you have an estimate of how much of the increase in CO2 is actually due to human activity, Tom?
The natural sources certainly depend on temperature (seasons) and if they’re large, like 50% or more of the total, then the CO2 data could only be obtained by a self-consistent analysis, unless it’s explicitly admitted that CO2 has no effect on temperatures. If the latter was true, the temperatures would only affect the source of the natural emitters/absorbers and not be affected by emission/absorption itself.
The only estimates IIRC were in one of the IPCC document I lost when my other PC smoked (Chinese batteries) so sorry no I can’t help. But one of the other sites may have the info. Failing that the old stand-by is ‘scholar.google.com’ search.
Dmh, all the added CO2 is due to human activity. It’s the best thing the human race ever did for the planet. Did you ever meet a biological niche that didn’t get 100% of its carbon from CO2? I never met one.
Thanks Tom, I’ll check the paper.
@Morgan, I’m not convinced that data on CO2 is correct.
I’ve heard others say that only a relatively small part of present CO2 levels is due to human activity, that sources like volcanoes and ocean outgassing contribute much more to the total levels than humans, but I have not read the source of their arguments.
As Steve has pointed out, all this is probably not very important, if you consider (as we do) that CO2 has essentially no effect on the warming observed in the XX century, but in my mind I think it’d be nice to check how realistic these data about CO2 levels are, as they are an essential ingredient of all the climate discussion.
It’s just my curiosity right now, but if good part of the data about climate is doctored/adjusted to some extent, I’d not be surprised if the same is happening to the CO2 levels.
If the data is doctored, and depending on how much, it could also be an important element to understand the workings of the AGW “problem”, which I believe is now exclusively an academic/political problem not a climatological one.
3% of CO2 produced each year is due to human activity. The balance is something like 103 units a year produced and 100 consumed. The extra 3 is produced by humans. Or maybe it’s 104 to 101 as 1 is absorbed by sinks (the ocean and plants). Something along those lines. Net result is humans make a tiny fraction of the CO2 but all the ADDED CO2.
Imagine you deposit $103 in the bank every week and spend $100. You save $3 a week.
There are numerous labs throughout the world and several government labs measuring atmospheric CO2 and other species continuously, e.g. Barrow Alaska.http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/brw/
Personally, I’d rather work in Hawaii.
I realize I’m just an ignorant engineer and skeptic, but it seems to me that they placed the measuring station for CO2 data in a location that is quite possibly the worst place they could find… assuming the lot next to the fermentation building at Anheuser Busch was already taken. It’s ideal for the kind of measurements that seem to be central to warmist science. Measurements will require lots of ‘adjustment’ to balance out the horribly skewed atmospheric chemistry one would find in the most volcanically active part of the United States. That would explain why that curve is remarkably neat and tidy for something that is supposedly measuring nature.
There is a good explanation at the following link, for example wind patterns are predictable there and can be used for various means. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
There are numerous laboratories about the world that also measure CO2. Here is Hohenpeissenberg in Germany where CO2 seems to have peaked at under 400ppm in 2014:
Explore the ESRL website to see all the places where CO2, O3 and other gases are measured.
Got the message Steve, some other time, some other place.
Morgan – very interesting indeed. Please can you give sources of these data?
We warmers know that CO2 varies seasonally, is natural variation, doesn’t conflict with the logic of anthropogenic increase.
Movie at: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/globalview/
There are many other samples than just Hawaii:
R. Shearer & NielsZoo, thanks for your comments, I followed the link of WUWT, given by Ric Werme
and it contains a comprehensive explanation of the CO2 levels estimate, including the fact that the Mauna Loa data is just an average of the seasonal variations, while the more direct (non-averaged) data can be found at NOAA,
in particular, the 3rd graph in that page,
has the yearly/decadal variation, which is what I was expecting to see in a measured data.
They do systematic comparisons with observations around the world as well as other NOAA’s stations in Barrow, Alaska, the South Pole and American Samoa, therefore, it’s not just an “extrapolation” of Mauna Loa’s data for the rest of the world.
Their estimates seem now very realistic to me, and the only possible source of “bias”- in terms of AGW assumption to influence their results- as far as I can see, would be their simulation of surface fluxes of CO2, but I don’t think this could change the final average importantly.
My conclusion is that the average increased levels of CO2 look “unnaturally smooth” probably because they are not created by natural means, i.e. it’s a real signal of human activity.
Good for us- skeptics- that CO2 (at present levels, at least) seems to have nearly no effect on climate.
You might find this interesting, stomata data indicates that ice-core analysis biases CO2 low. http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html
Thanks for the link, another thing that calls my attention to CO2 measurements, besides it’s direct connection with AGW, is the fact that at the end of previous interglacials the CO2 levels reached a maximum, as is happening now, and I wonder how much of this “spike”, just before the glacial inception, is a necessary part of the glacial/interglacial oscillation.
In this case, if the CO2 levels are *above* what would be the natural spike, what consequences should we expect?
So far it seems clear, IMO, that it’s not preventing the cooling due to oceanic oscillations and solar radiations, but it’s possibly causing dryness of the high troposphere
probably in connection with plants “absorbing more CO2” and “releasing less water vapor”
It’s not clear in my mind what the consequences of this increased dryness will be, but I have the impression that the world’s thermal inertia is decreasing, despite the fact that we’re having less tornadoes and hurricanes recently.
CO2 is subjected to the same type of fraud as the temperature record is. The only reason it doesn’t get much notice is because it takes a bit more science background. For example according to geologist Tom Segelstad. Only about 20% of the CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa are being used.
As a chemist who has worked in industry where mixing is a major concern, I find the ASSumption that CO2 is “Well Mixed” in the atmosphere completely and utterly ABSURD. The satellites, if you read the fine print, show this as do balloon measurements.
In 1958 the modern NDIR spectroscopic method was introduced to measure CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In the 1973, I was trying to get the G&%$# D&^% IR instrumentation to give me reasonable accuracy in South Carolina. Perkin-Elmer had represented the equipment as capable of doing analytical work (parts per million) when it could do no such thing. Qualitative Analysis, fine Quantitative – not on your life. I wasted nearly a year with that miserable piece of ….. Now I finally know why Perkin-Elmer told such a whopper about the instrument’s abilities. It was straight from the CAGW warmists.
If I recall correctly Jaworowski mentioned that there was no cross calibration between the old wet chemical analysis methods and the new IR method.
Historic variations: WELL WORTH THE READ!!! It has Ernest Beck as a commenter. It contains his last post on the internet before he died.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/ (Click on pdfs) or
Or an earlier work before Jaworowski became so angry: http://www.co2web.info/stoten92.pdf
Drake reached a similar conclusion about the ice cores underestimated historical concentrations of CO2:
David Middleton on CO2 measurements:
Beck on CO2 and Temperature: Oceans are the “dominant CO2 store”
NOTE: this comment went to moderation so I am striping the URLs so it will post real time:
CO2 is subjected to the same type of fraud as the temperature record is.
The only reason it doesn’t get much notice is because it takes a bit more science background. For example according to geologist Tom Segelstad. Only about 20% of the CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa are being used.
As a chemist who has worked in industry where mixing is a major concern, I find the ASSumption that CO2 is “Well Mixed” in the atmosphere completely and utterly ABSURD. The satellites, if you read the fine print, shown the atmosphere is NOT well mixed as do balloon measurements.
(wwwDOT)warwickhughes.com/icecore/ (Click on pdfs) or
David Middleton on CO2 measurements:
Beck on CO2 and Temperature: Oceans are the “dominant CO2 store”
Maybe that’s why they don’t use any carbon dioxide concentration data they do record when doing weather sounding. The data is all over the map and the error bars are core to outer space :P.
I’m sure that I’m not the only one to notice the lumpiness of the carbon dioxide brightness values shown on satellite images, even with the filtering.
Accuracy of CO2 measurements is of no concern to those who ignored precise experimental data from the nuclear and space ages for the past sixty-nine years (2014 – 1945 = 69 yrs)
Thanks for the links. This is historical the part I never quite bought from the start and this looks like a lot of good info to go through… and the reading and checking should cover my weekends for the foreseeable future. I do find it interesting that over a century ago the folks trying to do research in this area had issues with readings taken in Greenland due to contamination concerns over the huge amount of volcanic activity in the area… and a 106 years later we rely on readings that must be “corrected” from a volcanic island. Since CO2 increases are the foundation of Warmist dogma I think that examining all of the historical information is extremely relevant… especially when it appears that so much data has been tossed out because it didn’t agree with someone’s mean.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 1,930 other followers