More Flagrant Lies From Climate Scientists

Climate science has gone 100% veracity free. Desperate to keep their scam funding alive, there seems to be no limit on how dishonest scientists will get.

ScreenHunter_8804 Apr. 29 08.17 

New study finds strong link between weather extremes, global warming – Nation – The Boston Globe‘ 

Flagrant lies. The IPCC predicted mild winters and less snow

BepTksDCMAEkCHw (1)

IPCC Third Assessment Report – Climate Change 2001 – Complete online versions | GRID-Arendal – Publications – Other

The frequency of hot days has plummeted over much of the world. In the US, hot days are much less common than they were 80 years ago.

ScreenHunter_8805 Apr. 29 08.20

Hot days in Australia are much less common than they were at the start of the 20th century.

ScreenHunter_8802 Apr. 29 08.13

Hot days in France were more common at the end of the 19th century.

ScreenHunter_8800 Apr. 29 08.06

These 100% fraudulent studies are becoming increasingly common, as scientists become increasingly desperate to keep their scam alive.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

69 Responses to More Flagrant Lies From Climate Scientists

  1. gator69 says:

    And it only took 25 different models to arrive at this delusion.

    Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it.
    -Alan Perlis

    • Jason Calley says:

      It is always amazing how the so-called “climate scientists” will make some models — which we know are not able to represent the atmosphere on a fine enough scale (for example http://climateaudit.org/2005/12/22/gcms-and-the-navier-stokes-equations/ ) — look at the results and proclaim a definitive statement about forthcoming global doom.

      Imagine this analogous situation:
      “”I can prove that CAGW is a scam!”
      “Really? How?”
      “Well, I wrote three novels about the subject, and in all three it was revealed at the end that the climate scientists were altering the data!”
      “What?!! Three NOVELS! How does that prove anything? You know that they are fiction, right?”
      “Well, sure! Of course they are fiction — but it is very realistic fiction! I made them as believable as I could.”
      “Being realistic is nice, but just because something is realistic, that does not make it actual reality. You can’t prove something by making up a story about it!”
      “Normally, I would agree with you. But I wrote all three of these novels using a word editing program. Using a computer to write them make the stories become real!”
      “I’ve never heard anything so crazy!”
      “I have…”

      🙂

      • Gail Combs says:

        It is not only the Unknown Unkowns but the studiously ignored Knowns that are going to bite the ClimAstrologists in the arse.

        Now if we could some how aim the inner city types at the universities, the ensuing destruction would improve society.

        A wee bit of Karma — ‘Reap what you sow’ would be really nice.

        • gator69 says:

          I would just like the modelers to list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

          After all, it is “settled science”.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Gator,
          Shirley you Jest.

          “Why should I give you my data when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?” — Phil Jones

      • Rico L says:

        That cheered me up on this cold miserable morning 😉

    • Gail Combs says:

      Professor Bigsley really blew it when he picked Boston MA as his first test case.

      http://conservatoons.deviantart.com/art/Stupid-Detector-97612450

        • John B() says:

          Shouldn’t that be:
          Professor Bigsley STUPIDly turns onn his new Stupidity Detector when a Global Warming seminar/tent revival is in town.
          ?
          That way you underscore the idea of a positive feedback

    • richard clenney says:

      What are their choices? If the say nothing, the facts crush them, and thet lose their grants.
      if they lie, they postpone the day of reckoning. If they tell the truth, they not only lose
      their grants, they may be liable to refund the grants, and go to jail

      • Neal S says:

        Perhaps they are hoping to retire before it is too late. They plan to move to a tropical place close to the sea and preferably with no extradition treaty with the USA. Then when the wheels fall off the AGW cart, they imagine they will be safely out of reach of both US law and the coming Ice Age.

    • FTOP says:

      Occam’s Razor would say that big yellow circle in the sky might be the most important.

      • gator69 says:

        If you pay someone to prove A+B=C, C will always be the answer you get.

        The IPCC charter…

        “ … to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy.“

        It was a hit job from the start, a prosecution and not an investigation.

        • Gail Combs says:

          The human species was found guilty before the trial and the MSM has been stirring up the lynch mob. Only problem is the lynch mob has not realized it is themselves they are murdering.

          Sort of reminds me of the inner city types burning their own supply lines — Go figure.

    • The new bullshit is this 75% Garbage…

      75% of extreme weather caused by .0004 mole CO2… laughable… were it not so serious…

  2. nickreality65 says:

    Let’s discuss ppm.
    The IGSS site (Mass of atmos CO2 page) says ppm is volumetric based. I have seen other sources that refer to ppm as volumetric based including references to Mauna Loa. ppmv
    Another approach has ppm that is gram weight based. ppmgw
    World Bank 4C report says ppm is mole based. ppmmol

    Which is it? Which one did IPCC use? Why don’t they specify?
    Since the specific volume of CO2 is less than that of air, the anthro CO2 ppm volumetric or mole basis will be even less than the gram weight based. All of these cases use the residual 45% atmospheric component.

    IPCC AR5
    Year……ppm
    1750……278
    2011……390.5
    Diff…….112.5
    Additional CO2 due to man…….555 PgC, 375 PgC due to fossil fuel and cement production.

    ppm gram weight based=(grams CO2 added)/(atmospheric grams)
    (3.75E+17/ 5.14E+21)*.45 = 32.8 ppm or about 30% of the 112.5 ppm CO2 increase between 1750 and 2011.

    ppm volumetric based=((grams CO2 added)/((1.842 grams CO2)/m^3 ))/((grams air)/((1.205 grams air)/m^3 ))
    (3.75E+17 * 1.205)/ (5.14E+21 * 1.842)*.45 = 21.6 ppm or about 21.6% of the 112.5 ppm CO2 increase between 1750 and 2011.

    ppm mole based=((grams CO2 added)/((44.01 grams CO2)/mole))/((grams air)/((28.97 grams air)/mole))
    (3.75E+17 * 28.97)/ (5.14E+21 * 44.01)*.45 = 21.5 ppm or about 21.5% of the 112.5 ppm CO2 increase between 1750 and 2011.

    Mankind’s fossil fuel and cement CO2 production contributed about 21.5% of the CO2 ppm increase between 1750 and 2011.

    • gator69 says:

      There is more to this issue…

      The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv (Figure 2). In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution.
      -Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski
      Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
      Warsaw, Poland

      http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm

      More Cherries. Surprise!

    • Gail Combs says:

      Barrow Alaska CO2 data for 1947-1948 data shows 420 ppm! (average of 330 samples) It is noted that the Keeling samples (1972 to 2004) are transported from Barrow Alaska to California before they are analysed. (wwwDOT)biokurs.de/eike/daten/leiden26607/leiden6e.htm

      Here is Becks information from Barrow:
      Date – –Co2 ppm * * latitude * * longitude * * *author * * location
      1947.7500 – – 407.9 * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
      1947.8334 – – 420.6 * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
      1947.9166 – – 412.1 * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
      1948.0000 – – 385.7 * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
      1948.0834 – – 424.4 * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
      1948.1666 – – 452.3 * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
      1948.2500 – – 448.3 * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
      1948.3334 – – 429.3 * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
      1948.4166 – – 394.3 * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
      1948.5000 – – 386.7 * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
      1948.5834 – – 398.3 * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
      1948.6667 – – 414.5 * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
      1948.9166 – – 500.0 * * * * *71.00* * * -156.80 * * *Scholander * *Barrow
      These data must not be used for commercial purposes or gain in any way, you should observe the conventions of academic citation in a version of the following form: [Ernst-Georg Beck, real history of CO2 gas analysis, (wwwDOT)biomind.de/realCO2/data.htm ]
      Scholander got more than a 100ppm swing at Barrow over a year’s time.

      Atmospheric CO2 and Global Warming: A Critical Review

      Historic variations in CO2 measurements

      Of interest:
      Were key 1995 IPCC scientists’ conclusions of man-made global warming, tampered with?

      • R. Shearer says:

        The measurement techniques were probably accurate back then (1860-1960) but the samples were likely contaminated. Today, more care is taken to obtain a “good” sample and the analytical techniques have better precision and accuracy (in general). There is no physical mechanism by which earth’s atmospheric CO2 could vary by 100 ppm or more in a very short period of time (1 or 2 years), which the early data shows. This indicates that the early results do not accurately measure global atmospheric CO2.

        • Gail Combs says:

          You are making the assumption that CO2 is uniform in the atmosphere. An idiotic assumption without a lot of proof since there are numorous sources and since and CO2 is heavier than air. I have been round and round on this assumption with F. Englebeen but I do not have all my various data to hand.

          One bit of information is the satelites show the CO2 is not uniform despite the sample size being in the range of kilometers^2 (^3?) (Don’t have the URL)

          Dr. Glassman also addresses the issue:

          …[Turn now to the well-mixed issue. The IPCC (Consensus) needs that assumption. Some of the graphs in the literature indicate that South Pole readings appear to be from the same population as readings from other parts of the globe, including in particular Mauna Loa in the TAR. This assumption is important to AGW claims that CO2 levels are at unprecedented levels and that man’s CO2 pollution has a residence time in the atmosphere between multiple decades and centuries. The data contradict these conclusions, and draw into question the calibration methods used in the various readings.

          [The residence time of CO2 is easily calculated from IPCC (Consensus) data. It is about 1.5 years to 2.0 years, depending on whether you include the leaf water uptake reported by the IPCC (Consensus).

          [As to being well-mixed, the IPCC (Consensus) reports that the CO2 north-south gradient is ten times greater than the east-west gradient. This implies first that the east-west gradient is discernable, and second that the north-south gradient is at a minimum substantial, at least 10 times what is discernable. This directly contradicts the well-mixed assumption.

          [The western Pacific Ocean perpetually emits a huge quantity of CO2. That gas rises at the Equator and splits toward the poles. It rises into Hadley cells which bring the gas down and feed it into the trade winds. This circulation puts Mauna Loa directly in the chimney of the great efflux of CO2 from the ocean. A little decadal shift in climate patterns could move this CO2 plume across Mauna Loa to cause some or all of the observed increases. On the other hand, the cold waters at the poles create a massive sink for CO2. The Vostok data are drawn from the interior of this sink….
          http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

        • gator69 says:

          Correct Gail, and besides, Prof Zbigniew Jaworowski is not an idiot.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Nor is Dr Glassman or Dr Segalstad http://www.co2web.info/

        • R. Shearer says:

          Of course the atmosphere is not homogenous, however, it’s closer to being well mixed than not. We all know that there are sources and sinks. In the olden days it was more difficult to get to pristine environments not influenced by local sources, whether these be a burning fire or even ones breath. It would be a bad idea to measure CO2 indoors or near a factory and use that measurement to represent global CO2 concentration.

          CO2 is heavier than N2 or O2 but eventually, these diffuse into each other (diffusion is entropy driven). On average, the concentration globally is going to be within +/- 10 ppm of the mean. We can’t go back in time and no one intentionally took representative samples of the atmosphere for future measurements of CO2. However, the scatter of the old data indicates that there was a sampling problem back then. That data cannot be dismissed entirely, but objectively we can see that the scatter is indicative of poor precision.

        • Gail Combs says:

          R. Shearer says: ….CO2 is heavier than N2 or O2 but eventually, these diffuse into each other (diffusion is entropy driven). On average, the concentration globally is going to be within +/- 10 ppm of the mean….

          It is the “eventually” that is the I Gottcha!

          “The CO2 concentration at 2 m above the crop was found to be fairly constant during the daylight hours on single days or from day-to-day throughout the growing season ranging from about 310 to 320 p.p.m. Nocturnal values were more variable and were between 10 and 200 p.p.m. higher than the daytime values.” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0002157173900034

          The extreme lower limit of 200 ppm can also be found in green house studies:

          CO2 depletion
          Plant photosynthetic activity can reduce the CO2 within the plant canopy to between 200 and 250 ppm… I observed a 50 ppm drop in within a tomato plant [C3] canopy just a few minutes after direct sunlight at dawn entered a green house (Harper et al 1979) … photosynthesis can be halted when CO2 concentration aproaches 200 ppm… (Morgan 2003) Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and does not easily mix into the greenhouse atmosphere by diffusionSource

          The sources and sinks plus Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and does not easily mix into the greenhouse atmosphere by diffusion means Co2 is NOT going to be well mixed.

        • Gail Combs says:

          MORE ON WELL MIXED”

          The sequestration rates of CO2 are dependent on partial pressure. High local atmospheric concentrations induce high local sequestration. And consideration of seasonal variations in atmospheric CO2 at a variety of locations indicates that most locally released CO2 (from any source, natural or anthropogenic) is sequestered locally
          (ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) ).

          You see more than 80 ppm variation in Harvard forest. From 320 ppm to around 420 ppm with a set of outliers to 500 ppm.

          There is no excuse for Manua Loa Obs for tossing out a lot of data.

          The annual mean CO2 level as reported from Mauna Loa

          At the Mauna Loa Observatory the measurements were taken with a new infra-red (IR) absorbing instrumental method, never validated versus the accurate wet chemical techniques. Critique has also been directed to the analytical methodology and sampling error problems (Jaworowski et al., 1992 a; and Segalstad, 1996, for further references), and the fact that the results of the measurements were “edited” (Bacastow et al., 1985); large portions of raw data were rejected, leaving just a small fraction of the raw data subjected to averaging techniques (Pales & Keeling, 1965).

          The acknowledgement in the paper by Pales & Keeling (1965) describes how the Mauna Loa CO2 monitoring program started: “The Scripps program to monitor CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans was conceived and initiated by Dr. Roger Revelle who was director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography while the present work was in progress. Revelle foresaw the geochemical implications of the rise in atmospheric CO2 resulting from fossil fuel combustion, and he sought means to ensure that this ‘large scale geophysical experiment’, as he termed it, would be adequately documented as it occurred. During all stages of the present work Revelle was mentor, consultant, antagonist. He shared with us his broad knowledge of earth science and appreciation for the oceans and atmosphere as they really exist, and he inspired us to keep in sight the objectives which he had originally persuaded us to accept.

          4. In keeping with the requirement that CO2 in background air should be steady, we apply a general “outlier rejection” step, in which we fit a curve to the preliminary daily means for each day calculated from the hours surviving step 1 and 2, and not including times with upslope winds. All hourly averages that are further than two standard deviations, calculated for every day, away from the fitted curve (“outliers”) are rejected. This step is iterated until no more rejections occur.
          http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

          CO2 is released by the Mauna Loa and the adjacent Kilauea volcanoes. This volcanic CO2 is
          (a) driven aloft by the sea breeze by day, and
          (b) driven back down by the land breeze at night.
          Hence, it is a gross and improbable assumption that these volcanic emissions do not significantly affect the measurement results

          Is this the description of true, unbiased research? The assumption is made that there is NO VARIABLITY and the data is adjusted to reflect that!

        • Gail Combs says:

          I tried to dig up the AIRS data. Might notes show:

          CO2 nadir resolution of 90 km X 90 km.
          http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/data/about_airs_co2_data/

          Unfortunately it now returns page not found.

          However googling for : AIRS CO2 nadir resolution of 90 km X 90 km.
          Returns:

          [PDF]
          AIRS Version 5 Release Tropospheric CO2 Products – GES DISC
          disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/AIRS/…/AIRS…/AIRS-V5-Tropospheric-CO2-Products. pdf‎
          Feb 3, 2015 … Access to AIRS Tropospheric CO2 Product Files . ….. reported at a nominal nadir resolution of 90 km x 90 km. Beginning with an assumed CO2 …

          http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/AIRS/documentation/v5_docs/AIRS_V5_Release_use_Docs/AIRS-V5-Tropospheric-CO2-Products. pdf

          Gives page not found or it just keeps looking. This is typical of ‘inconvienent’ information. It vanishes off the internet.

          Here is the AIRS july 2008 CO2 (ppmv) map:

        • R. Shearer says:

          Plants can be both a source and sink for CO2 (mostly a sink due to photosynthesis). No argument here. In fact that represents the issue that is in essence what I am trying to communicate. And yes, cold water absorbs more CO2 and warm water less.

          I did not say that CO2 was uniform, I clearly said that it was not homogenous although on average (average being the sum of the measurements divided by number of measurements) is within +/- 10 ppm (globally). As I said, one should be careful in measuring CO2 at any one point and then extrapolating that measurement to represent a “global” concentration. It’s very similar to temperature measurements and fraught with many of the same issues.

          Now one might think that measuring CO2 on the top of a volcano is a crazy thing to do, but the measurement method takes advantage of natural air circulation to avoid contamination and the results give a good representation of pristine air in the middle of the Pacific. The measurement method is precise enough to show the annual variation due to plant respiration. My point is that the measurements made by the best methods in the 1800s-1900s were not precise enough to show this. They were in fact inaccurate and had scatter of over 100 ppm in some cases. It is perfectly valid to throw out results that are obtained from contaminated samples or from methods that are inaccurate and or in precise.

          NOAA actually has a network of stations throughout the world. The measurements are of high quality, much better than in the past and the trends that they produce are more reliable. In chemistry, we speak of experimental error. The experimental error today is much lower.

        • Gail Combs says:

          R. Shearer,
          You are saying that the Keeling measurements taken at Mauna Loa are more accurate.

          Again I disagree.

          It is too late to dig up the exact reference, however Dr. Jaworowski and Dr Segalstad said that Keeling used a newly developed insturment, an Infrared Spectrophotometer (dual beam) and he never did the validation studies. This was in the 1960-1970s.

          As it happened Perkin-Elmer was advertising their Infrared Spectrophotometer as being able to do quantitative analysis. At the time my Lab was using a Gas Chromatograph and the method took a really long time so we bought a new IR and I was the one who was supposed to develop a new test method.

          In a word the IR SUCKED! I could not get any decent repeatablity. It was great for identification but we never were able to get it to work as an analytical tool.

          No wonder Mauna Loa tosses out the ‘outliers’!

        • Gail Combs says:

          Ernest Beck did the error analysis:

          FROM: http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/

        • R. Shearer says:

          Gail, you were using GC to measure CO2? What detector?

          When Keeling began his work, GCs were not even commercially available. CO2 is actually a good infrared absorber, kind of goes without saying, and IR spectroscopy is actually a good technique for CO2 in air.

          Back in the 1800’s, it was worse. No IR, no GC, yes, scales were good but no standards, such as ISO or ASTM. Few commercially prepared reagents with validated spec sheets. The data generated back then was of high quality for the time and the chemists were good but there was no Aldrich Chemical company.

          Ernst Beck did a good error analysis and what I am saying is consistent with his work. Look at the error bars! Are you saying the measurements are not becoming better? If you are, then you are saying the opposite of what Beck is.

        • gator69 says:

          Better representation of the global CO2 contributors than the NASA video.

      • Robertv says:

        “cold water absorbs more CO2 and warm water less.”

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Mankind’s fossil fuel and cement CO2 production contributed about 21.5% of the CO2 ppm ”

      MORE PLEASE , says the world’s biosphere.

      CO2 is one of the 2 main building blocks for ALL life on this Earth, and has been too low for a long. long time.. That is the REALITY, Nick.

      • nickreality65 says:

        The CO2 man’s fossil fuel & cement production (IPCC’s category) put in the atmosphere between 1750 and 2011 increased the atmospheric CO2 level by about 5.5%. Doesn’t look like a dangerous trend to me. Evaporating water vapor soaks up any additional CO2 “downwelling” perpetual motion heating anyway.

        So what problem does shutting down coal and installing green power solve except financing the green industry and government grant business?

    • R. Shearer says:

      As you can see from your calculations, ppm mol and vol are equivalent. Per the ideal gas equation (PV=nRT) volume and mole fraction are additive (P is fixed and R is a constant). Using mass in this case does not make sense to do since mass is not constant with changing composition.

      • nickreality65 says:

        Yes, I discovered that ppm gram basis was the wrong way to go. But why don’t all these papers and IPCC spell out what they are using? And how?

        And if it’s carbon as carbon say PtgC or GtC and if it’s carbon as carbon dioxide say so with PtgCO2 or GtCO2?

        Lazy? Imprecise? Deceitful? Obfuscating on purpose?

        • R. Shearer says:

          As Gail and others above point out, referring to CO2 as “carbon” is intentionally being deceptive. On the other hand, there is merit to accounting for a “carbon” balance on an elemental basis.

          With regard to ppm units, chemists doing work with gaseous samples understand that ppmv and ppm mol are equivalent and frequently just use “ppm.” Similarly for water analysis ppm is used but it is understood to mean ppm mass or mg/L, which happens to be equivalent at least for solutions that have a density close to 1 g/mL. Everybody is lazy at some point, though.

  3. Justa Joe says:

    Climate Hoax logic:
    If it’s bad weather (read; incnvenient for people) it must be caused by humans because the weather as if guided by some divine Michael Mann in the sky would always be perfect for everyone at all times.

    • emsnews says:

      During the Little Ice Age, everyone thought witches were changing the weather.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Now they think it is those EVIL ‘Climate Change Deniers’ and some are calling for our death. And so we enter the next Dark Ages…

  4. annieoakley says:

    Now Catalina Island is sinking (maybe) or rising (who knows) but a new study by Stanford shows that the Island could be underwater in 3 million years!

  5. darrylb says:

    Actually, the last IPCC report stated it is not possible, at present, to link increases in extent or amount of any extreme weather to global warming.

    —-and here we have an inconsistency. One cause of more extremes in weather events would be a larger gradient in temp from the equator to the poles. This increase would cause a larger difference in pressure areas causing more violent winds. So, if there were more warming at the poles, as alarmists predict, there would be a tendency for less extreme weather. I think the IPCC circle has had to consider this in their statements

    Secondly, a fundamental outcome of an increase in greenhouse activity, should, according to models, warm the atmosphere near the earth’s surface and cool it in higher altitudes. This difference should be greater near the equator where the surface of the earth has the highest percentage of water. However, the predicted equatorial ‘hot spot’ has not happened.

    The larger vertical temperature would cause more convective forces causing more violent weather.

    This, also, has not happened. Another modeled prediction not confirmed by observation!

    Maybe we can have a contest as to who can list the most failed predictions
    Maybe, I will give in to Gail already.

    • AndyG55 says:

      I just wonder why they still show steam or particulate smoke as CO2

      CO2 is an invisible life building gas.

      • Gail Combs says:

        To scare the low information dummies.

        It is why they call it carbon to equate it with soot. That is why people think it is a polutant. Even those who realize it is a gas think it is carbon MONOXIDE and not Carbon DIOXIDE.

  6. emsnews says:

    Catchy tune. We should make this the National anthem. I forgot who first posted this video here this last week.

  7. Dave N says:

    If it weren’t so sad, the swings between “settled science” and “a new study shows” would be hilarious.

  8. john says:

    The science is settled. The debate is over. 97% of the media is just a bad joke on the public. http://www.globalcoolingcausesglobalwarming.blogspot.com

  9. omanuel says:

    For seventy years, society faced two major puzzles:

    1. Why was there a news blackout of major events in Aug-Sept 1945?

    2. Why did mainstream consensus scientists hide, ignore or adjust data that falsified their models?

    We now know one answer explains both puzzles: STALIN WON WWII:

    Click to access Temperature_Data.pdf

  10. Gail Combs says:

    R. Shearer says: “Gail, you were using GC to measure CO2? What detector?

    When Keeling began his work, GCs were not even commercially available. CO2 is actually a good infrared absorber, kind of goes without saying, and IR spectroscopy is actually a good technique for CO2 in air…..”
    …….
    I was using GCs in 1968 and IRs in 1973. I was analysing organic drug precurors (FDA AUDITS!!!) They had strong IR absorption but the machine response was all over the place. Back then we wer using a ruler to define a triangle that approximated the area under the curve for both machines. The GC was good to parts per million even with that method. The IR was pure crap.

    On Keeling and Callendar and their fudging of data:

    Foreword by Professor Hartmut Frank

    ….There are many occasions where analytical data have no been validated or checked for their significance. In fact, it is common that environmental data are not subjected to normal statistical test as to their precision,variation, standard deviation,significance or probability of difference…..

    …Anyone who has performed a wet-chemical carbon dioxide determination, the calibration basis of any other spectroscopic method, is aware of the problems performing such analyses in the presence of more than 300 ppm Co2 in laboratory air. Therefore any justified question or critism should be adressed and answered in an objective, unbiased and patient manner; these environmental problems are just too important to leave to any argument pro or con aside.

    Also in scientific discussions sometimes the sentiment of the “generally accepted view of the scientific community” is heard — as if verification or falsification is a matter of majority vote. There are many historic examples when the common belief, the majority of those who knew, hindered true progress. Derogatory statements about a person’s scientific reputation are the least helpful. Often the less firm arguments are, the more is the interpretation based upon scientific “authority through majority”…..
    Prof. Dr Hartmut Frank
    Environmental Chemistry and Exotoxicology
    University of Bayreuth,
    Bayeurth, Germany

    Click to access IceCoreSprg97.pdf

    This is a different paper by Dr Segalstad

    …….The “CO2 Greenhouse Effect Doom” was being substantiated by Revelle & Suess (1957) who wrote: “Thus human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind which could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future. Within a few centuries we are returning to the air and oceans the concentrated organic carbon stored over hundreds of millions of years.” …….

    … At the same time Craig (1957) pointed out from the natural (by cosmic rays) radiocarbon (14-C) production rate that atmospheric CO2 is in active exchange with very large CO2 reservoirs in the ocean and biosphere. However, Callendar (1958) had apparently more faith in his carefully selected CO2 data…..

    The stir around the atmospheric CO2 data selected by Callendar made it necessary to start compiling analytical data of contemporary atmospheric CO2. 19 North-European stations measured atmospheric CO2 over a 5 year period from 1955 to 1959. Measuring with a wet-chemical technique the atmospheric CO2 level was found to vary between approximately 270 and 380 ppmv, with annual means of 315 – 331 ppmv, and there was no tendency of rising or falling atmospheric CO2 level at any of the 19 stations during this 5 year period (Bischof, 1960). The data are particularly important because they are unselected and therefore free of potential biases from selection procedures, unlike the CO2 measurements based on the procedures at Mauna Loa (see below). Note that these measurements were taken in an industrial region, and would indeed have shown an increase in CO2 levels if increasing amounts of anthropogenic CO2 were accumulating in the atmosphere during this period.

    During the same period atmospheric CO2 measurements were started near the top of the strongly CO2-emitting (e.g., Ryan, 1995) Hawaiian Mauna Loa volcano. The reason for the choice of location was that it should be far away from CO2-emitting industrial areas. At the Mauna Loa Observatory the measurements were taken with a new infra-red (IR) absorbing instrumental method, never validated versus the accurate wet chemical techniques. Critique has also been directed to the analytical methodology and sampling error problems (Jaworowski et al., 1992 a; and Segalstad, 1996, for further references), and the fact that the results of the measurements were “edited” (Bacastow et al., 1985); large portions of raw data were rejected, leaving just a small fraction of the raw data subjected to averaging techniques (Pales & Keeling, 1965).….

    The acknowledgement in the paper by Pales & Keeling (1965) describes how the Mauna Loa CO2 monitoring program started: “The Scripps program to monitor CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans was conceived and initiated by Dr. Roger Revelle who was director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography while the present work was in progress. Revelle foresaw the geochemical implications of the rise in atmospheric CO2 resulting from fossil fuel combustion, and he sought means to ensure that this ‘large scale geophysical experiment’, as he termed it, would be adequately documented as it occurred. During all stages of the present work Revelle was mentor, consultant, antagonist. He shared with us his broad knowledge of earth science and appreciation for the oceans and atmosphere as they really exist, and he inspired us to keep in sight the objectives which he had originally persuaded us to accept.” Is this the description of true, unbiased research?

    The annual mean CO2 level as reported from Mauna Loa for 1959 was 315.83 ppmv (15 ppmv lower than the contemporaneous North-European average level), reportedly rising steadily to 351.45 in January 1989 (Keeling et al., 1989), by averaging large daily and seasonal variations (the significance of all their digits not justified), but still within the range of the North European measurements 30-35 years earlier. Hence a rise in global atmospheric CO2 level has not yet been significantly justified by validated methods and sound statistics……

    Experimentally it has been found that CO2 and pure water at 25 degrees C reaches 99% isotopic equilibrium after 30 hours and 52 minutes; after shaking (like wave agitation) 99% equilibrium is reached after 4 hours and 37 minutes (Gonfiantini, 1981). At 350 ppmv CO2 in the air, the equilibrium concentration of carbonic acid in pure water will be about 0.00001 molal at 25 degrees C. This chemical equilibrium is reached within 20 seconds (Stumm & Morgan, 1970). At the same temperature, at pH-values between 7 and 9, CO2 reaches 99% chemical equilibrium with water and calcium carbonate in about 100 seconds (Dreybrodt et al., 1996).…..

    …. At this point one should note that the ocean is composed of more than its 75 m thick top layer and its deep, and that it indeed contains organics. The residence time of suspended POC (particular organic carbon; carbon pool of about 1000 giga-tonnes; some 130% of the atmospheric carbon pool) in the deep sea is only 5-10 years. This alone would consume all possible man-made CO2 from the total fossil fuel reservoir (some 7200 giga-tonnes) if burned during the next 300 years, because this covers 6 to 15 turnovers of the upper-ocean pool of POC, based on radiocarbon (carbon-14) studies (Toggweiler, 1990; Druffel & Williams, 1990; see also Jaworowski et al., 1992 a). The alleged long lifetime of 500 years for carbon diffusing to the deep ocean is of no relevance to the debate on the fate of anthropogenic CO2 and the “Greenhouse Effect”, because POC can sink to the bottom of the ocean in less than a year (Toggweiler, 1990)….

    http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.htm

    I recommend reading both in full.

    • R. Shearer says:

      If said drug precursors were solids, then you probably had to press them into an IR transparent pellet for analysis. Certainly, IR is better for some applications than others. CO2 absorbs very nicely at 1750 nm and in the case of CO2 in air, a gas cell requires no such sample pretreatment and can be of large volume (so more molecules in the IR beam’s path).

      In any case, I think you would have to agree that modern computers that integrate automatically and obviate the need manual triangulation are better for both precision and accuracy as well as ease of automation.

      I agree with you that is was possible to make good measurements by physical means, titration, prior to instrumental methods. On the other hand measurements that show 550 ppm one year and 300 ppm the next year do not look good and that is what the early record shows. Given that bad data exists, climate scientists so inclined will tarnish good data with the bad. Convincing anyone of the validity of the early work is a hard sell.

      I’ve analyzed CO2 in air using mass spectrometry, for calibration purposes, not for the purpose of quantifying it. I think that NOAA actually accounts for the difficulties quite well and as I noted previously, Mauna Loa is one of only many stations, but for some reason is the one that everyone wants visit :).

    • cdquarles says:

      I want to second Gail here, at least with respect to GCs and IR spectroscopy as it was back in the 60s/70s. I’m a bit younger, but we used ‘antique’ machines all of the time. We preferred GC/MS for ‘precise = high resolution’ work. IR spec was too flaky. The machine we had was so flaky only one person was allowed to run it (which complicated doing error analysis, since you could not be certain of what the operator did and if you cited operator error in other than the most general terms you had a political problem).

      My chemistry pedantry meter pegs when people talk about carbon dioxide being heavier than air. Okay, yes; but for gases at surface temperatures and pressures the molecules are moving quickly and randomly. What you can say is that carbon dioxide molecular diffusion speed is slower than oxygen (which is also technically heavier than air) or nitrogen or argon. This allows one to seque into ‘well mixed’ Given the very large and variable sources and sinks of carbon dioxide, I think that one could only say it was well mixed if you’re talking about small volumes of air at ‘normal’ temperatures and pressures. That is a problem, to me, for the gross grid scales used by climate modelers.

      And yes, 100 ppmv changes of carbon dioxide concentration is very much possible over a large enough volume with enough time and energy for chemical processes to take place, especially since these will not necessarily be uniform, even if bounded.

  11. Gail Combs says:

    R. Shearer says: “…Back in the 1800’s, it was worse. No IR, no GC, yes, scales were good but no standards, such as ISO or ASTM. Few commercially prepared reagents with validated spec sheets. The data generated back then was of high quality for the time and the chemists were good but there was no Aldrich Chemical company.

    Ernst Beck did a good error analysis and what I am saying is consistent with his work. Look at the error bars! Are you saying the measurements are not becoming better? If you are, then you are saying the opposite of what Beck is…..”

    Why is it that the very careful work of Nobel Prize Winners get such bad press now a days?

    LOOK at the Error bars again!
    The error from 1880 to 1940 was LESS than the error for the time period ~1950s when Pales & Keeling were playing around with their
    “new infra-red (IR) absorbing instrumental method, never validated versus the accurate wet chemical techniques.”

    Also Beck matches that curve to SST (as Segalstad noted CO2 in the atmosphere is in equilibrium with the CO2 in the sea and therefore the amount is temperature dependent.)

    Fig. 2. Annual atmospheric CO2 background level from 1856 to 2008 compared to SST (Kaplan, KNMI); red line, CO2 MBL reconstruction from 1826 to 1959 (Beck 2010); CO2 1960-2008: (Mauna Loa); blue line, annual SST (Kaplan) from 1856 -2003; SST= sea surface temperature

    • R. Shearer says:

      I should have been more “precise.” The spread of the data particularly in the 1800’s is quite poor. I believe that sampling was poor and reagents and equipment was likely contaminated. A common means to dry glassware back then was to “flame” it. As we know, combustion produces CO2. It is always more difficult to measure something that is of unknown value. Of course over time analysts become more experienced and know what is real and what is an outlier. In the early days, they didn’t know that.

      IR is a valid technique and is used routinely for respirometry applications in which hundreds of thousands of instruments are used today throughout the world. This paper discusses relevant history and valid for this similar application. http://www.oem.respironics.com/wp/Infrared%20Measurement%20of%20CO2%20in%20the%20Human%20Breath_Jaffe.pdf

      • Gail Combs says:

        The beastie I used was similar to this. http://antiquesci.50webs.com/PE337/IJVS6PE-2.htm

        We were doing liquid samples and spiked the sample with a known amount of a chemical that did not interfere with the spectra as a calibration standard. We did ten known samples over the range in question for the initial calibration curve and then at least once a week make up three to five samples to recalibrate the curve. Unfortunately the IR just did not reproduce results as well as we would have liked in the accuracy range we were looking for.

        It was a beckman double beam prism Inrared spectrophotometer purchased in 1973 and I got another one for another lab in 1977. I never had access to a computerized GC until 1985. I was just happy to have access to a hand calculator!

        The PDF you linked is for human breath. An adult’s breath which contains about 35,000 to 50,000 ppm of CO2. A hundred times more CO2 then found in the atmosphere and I doubt that an accuracy of +/-2 or 3 ppm was even desired. An accuracy of 100 ppm or even 10,000 ppm would ge the monitoring job done.
        ……

        THIS however really really bothers me and the AIRS data is handles the same way:

        “At Mauna Loa we use the following data selection criteria:

        3. There is often a diurnal wind flow pattern on Mauna Loa ….. The upslope air may have CO2 that has been lowered by plants removing CO2 through photosynthesis at lower elevations on the island,…. Hours that are likely affected by local photosynthesis are indicated by a “U” flag in the hourly data file, and by the blue color in Figure 2. The selection to minimize this potential non-background bias takes place as part of step 4. At night the flow is often downslope, bringing background air. However, that air is sometimes contaminated by CO2 emissions from the crater of Mauna Loa. As the air meanders down the slope that situation is characterized by high variability of the CO2 mole fraction…..

        4. In keeping with the requirement that CO2 in background air should be steady, we apply a general “outlier rejection” step, in which we fit a curve to the preliminary daily means for each day calculated from the hours surviving step 1 and 2, and not including times with upslope winds. All hourly averages that are further than two standard deviations, calculated for every day, away from the fitted curve (“outliers”) are rejected. This step is iterated until no more rejections occur…..”

        It is along the line of:” you will obey me, or else”
        They have a preconceived notion of what the curve should be and they impose it, is my conclusion from this. Of course this is necessary with all the outgassing volcanoes in the vicinity not to mention an ocean that is changing temperature and full of green growing things.
        If any data that is not within 2 standard deviations is rejected then of course you will never see swing of 80 ppm or more — it has already been edited out of the final “product”

        Independent measurements?
        Not hardly A while ago I managed to find a link and publications for measurements. They were all Keeling and another fellow, possibly the graduate student going through the hoops. I do not call that independent.
        Here are the locations I find:
        http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2.html
        something like 14, and practically all the publications are Keeling et al
        There is a map too
        http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/research/atmospheric_co2.html

        Keeling’s son has since taken over and all of the stations are calibrated to Mauna Loa.
        So we are back to:

        At the Mauna Loa Observatory the measurements were taken with a new infra-red (IR) absorbing instrumental method, never validated versus the accurate wet chemical techniques. Critique has also been directed to the analytical methodology and sampling error problems (Jaworowski et al., 1992 a; and Segalstad, 1996, for further references), and the fact that the results of the measurements were “edited” (Bacastow et al., 1985); large portions of raw data were rejected, leaving just a small fraction of the raw data subjected to averaging techniques (Pales & Keeling, 1965).

        The acknowledgement in the paper by Pales & Keeling (1965) describes how the Mauna Loa CO2 monitoring program started: “The Scripps program to monitor CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans was conceived and initiated by Dr. Roger Revelle who was director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography while the present work was in progress. Revelle foresaw the geochemical implications of the rise in atmospheric CO2 resulting from fossil fuel combustion, and he sought means to ensure that this ‘large scale geophysical experiment’, as he termed it, would be adequately documented as it occurred. During all stages of the present work Revelle was mentor, consultant, antagonist. He shared with us his broad knowledge of earth science and appreciation for the oceans and atmosphere as they really exist, and he inspired us to keep in sight the objectives which he had originally persuaded us to accept.” Is this the description of true, unbiased research?

        Here is what AIRS itself is saying:

        Significant Findings from AIRS Data
        1. ‘Carbon dioxide is not homogeneous in the mid-troposphere; previously it was thought to be well-mixed
        2. ‘The distribution of carbon dioxide in the mid-troposphere is strongly influenced by large-scale circulations such as the mid-latitude jet streams and by synoptic weather systems, most notably in the summer hemisphere
        3. ‘There are significant differences between simulated and observed CO2 abundance outside of the tropics, raising questions about the transport pathways between the lower and upper troposphere in current models
        4. ‘Zonal transport in the southern hemisphere shows the complexity of its carbon cycle and needs further study

        http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/About_AIRS_CO2_Data/

        There is no way CO2 was going to be well mixed. It was just a mythical ASSumption needed to make CAGW work It is really that simple. CAGW has always been a political whip to herd the sheeple and when you look into any of the details you find ‘adjustments’ fudging, selecting, and out right lying.

        • R. Shearer says:

          Damn, I’m sorry, I keep making a long reply and then check something and lose it. Here’s my main thing for you. If you’d like to give PE IR another go, there is a model 237 on ebay. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Perkin-Elmer-237B-Grating-Infrared-Spectrophotometer-with-Manual-/301204162952?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item46212ac988

          Anyway, IR is a good way to measure CO2 for many applications. The breath application requires a fast response and small sample size to measure individual breaths. In the atmosphere a larger sample size and longer time constant produce greater sensitivity.

          There are other many widely used IR detectors for CO2 that are validation and widely used. One you might be aware of used in pharma is the TOC analyzer. These are often capable of sub ppm sensitivity for organics in water, e.g. for cleaning validation, also required by FDA.

        • R. Shearer says:

          There are networks of other stations in other countries as well as Universities. In Colorado, we have the Mountain Research Station at Niwot Ridge. There is a common thread of standards being generated by a single group, used to be at Scripps.

  12. Gail Combs says:

    More on CO2

    ……The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2). In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].

    Improper manipulation of data, and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming is common in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases. In peer reviewed publications I exposed this misuse of science [3, 9]. Unfortunately, such misuse is not limited to individual publications, but also appears in documents of national and international organizations…..

    The apparent scientific weaknesses of IPCC and its lack of impartiality, was diagnosed and criticized in the early 1990s in NATURE editorials [18, 19]. The disease, seems to be persistent.

    Conclusion

    The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning. The climatically inefficient and economically disastrous Kyoto Protocol, based on IPCC projections, was correctly defined by President George W. Bush as “fatally flawed”. This criticism was recently followed by the President of Russia Vladimir V. Putin. I hope that their rational views might save the world from enormous damage that could be induced by implementing recommendations based on distorted science….
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

    A heck of a lot more information:

    Errors in Measurements of Gas Trapped in Ancient Ice Cores.

    From its very beginning, the hypothesis on anthropogenic greenhouse warming was tainted with a biased selection of data, ad hoc assumptions that were not verified experimentally, and one-sided interpretations. Such symptoms of affliction, which Irving Langmuir called “pathological science,”1 are evident in the publications of G.S. Callendar, who truly can be regarded as the father of the modern “man-made climatic warming” hypothesis. In 1938, Callendar revived Svante Arrhenius’s idea of man-made climatic warming, now 100 years old.2 Callendar claimed that because of fossil fuel burning, the average atmospheric concentration of CO2 had increased from the 19th century value of 274 parts per million volume (ppmv) to 325 ppmv in 1935, that is, by 18.6 percent; and that between 1880 and 1935, this caused an increase in the global surface temperature of 0.33°C.3-5 However, the measured 19th century CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere ranged from about 250 to 550 ppmv (Figure 1), and the average concentration estimated from these values was 335 ppmv.6

    A nonsignificant decreasing trend of values in Figure 1, between 1860 and 1900, when CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning increased from 91.5 to 485.6 million tons of carbon was similar to a decrease in global surface air temperature in this period.7 This may reflect lower CO2 degassing from colder oceans, the result of natural climatic fluctuation.8 To reach the low 19th century CO2 concentration, the cornerstone of his hypothesis, Callendar used a biased selection method. From a set of 26 19th century averages, Callendar rejected 16 that were higher than his assumed low global average, and 2 that were lower…..

    ….New light was shed on the validity of the dating of recent ice strata when six U.S. Lightning fighter planes and two B 17 Flying Fortresses from World War II were found buried in 1942 ice, about 200 km south from a classic Greenland site at Dye 3, where they had made an emergency landing. The planes were found 47 years later at a depth of 78 m, and not at the 12-m depth that had been estimated by glaciologists using oxygen isotope dating.20…..

    Until 1985, the published CO2 readings from air bubbles in pre-industrial ice ranged from 160 to about 700 ppmv, and occasionally even up to 2,450 ppmv. After 1985, high readings disappeared from the publications! To fit such a wide range of results to the anthropogenic climatic warming theory, which was based on low pre-industrial CO2 levels, three methods were used: (1) rejection of high readings from sets of preindustrial samples, based on the credo: “The lowest CO2 values best represent the CO2 concentrations in the originally trapped ice”;23 (2) rejection of low readings from sets of 20th century samples; and (3) interpretation of the high readings from pre-industrial samples as representing the contemporary atmosphere rather than the pre-industrial one.
    [several examples of rewriting papers follows]

    This paper contains tons and tons of well documented information on the nitty gritty of analysing ice core samples. Well worth the read.

    If there was any honesty left in science this very good, very well documented paper would have killed CAGW dead in 2007. It hits every single fallacy in CAGW and blast them with fact after fact. link

    • R. Shearer says:

      Ice core analysis represents a classic example of circular argument. Analysts continually adjusted their techniques to get the answers that they wanted. Then, some extrapolate the data to support their own conclusions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s