Hissink, CO2 and conspiracy theories

William Connolley at RealClimate provides a useful summary of the scientific consensus on global warming. He notes

That the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic is so obvious that few people question it

Of course, Louis Hissink is one of those few people, insisting that the evidence isn’t just wrong, but is fraudulent. (I’ve added the green and red lines to the graph he presents—I’ll explain what they are below.)

So far not one scintilla of evidence has been produced to counter the scientific evidence graphed in Figure 2 from Jaworowski’s submission to the US Senate in March 2004.

It basically refutes the lie that CO2 levels have been constant at a level of 270 ppmv for the last 10,000 years.

However, if you examine Jaworowski’s graph, it is clear that most of the CO₂ measurements shown on the graph are inaccurate. The measurements for 1865, for example, vary from 290 to 550 parts per million. It just isn’t possible for the CO₂ concentration to change by that much in one year—the difference corresponds to about 500 billion tons of carbon which is about the same amount of carbon in all plants in the entire world. The red line I added shows the measurements of CO₂ concentration taken at Mauna Loa since 1958. Notice how there are no huge year-to-year fluctuations.

So given that many of the measurements are wrong, it makes no sense to average them as Jaworowski suggests should be done. The correct procedure is discard the inaccurate measurements. Callendar discarded (Tellus X (1958 p 244):

(a) Period mean values 10% or more different from the general average of the time and region.

(b) Air samples taken in towns, because these often give 5 to 20% more CO₂ than uncontaminated air.

(c) Averages depending on only a few samples, or made within a short period, because real fluctuations may exceed 10% in such cases.

(d) Measurements intended for special purposes such as biological, soil air, atmospheric pollution, etc

Jaworowski claims that rather that selecting the most accurate values, Callendar made an arbitrary selection to produce the result (increasing CO₂) that he desired. Jaworowski has not a scrap of evidence for his claim and all other data supports Callendar. The green line shows measurements of CO₂ concentration from ice cores at Law Dome. Notice how it agrees with the values Callendar chose and the red line of the Mauna Loa measurements. Jaworowski has an answer to this. The ice core measurements are fraudulent, as are the Mauna Loa measurements. Multiple independent ice core measurements agree with those from the Law Dome, so presumably Jaworowski believes that these are the product of a huge conspiracy as well. It should come as no surprise that Jaworowski’s theories were not published in a scientific journal, but in 21st Century, a magazine published by Lyndon LaRouche, renowned for his belief in various conspiracy theories.

Comments

#1 RH Morgan
January 7, 2005

There’s somethig a little vague about calling the atmospheric CO2 concentration increase anthropogenic. I think it would be helpful to distinguish between directly anthropogenic and indirectly so, as there are feedbacks from anthropogenic to non-anthropogenic increases. We also know from some ice cores that increases in temperature sometimes preceeded increases in atmospheric CO2, which points to a parallel non-anthropogenic source.
#2 jre
January 7, 2005

RH, excellent point. As it happens, RealClimate has

a fine post discussing just how we know whether an observed CO₂ increase is anthropogenic.

Tim, if you had opened this post with the last sentence, many of us would have stopped reading right there, having learned enough.

Anyone familiar with the LaRouche family of publications is aware that their contributors are … well, a stable of loonies.

Those interested in looking at the actual data, rather than some goofily tendentious interpretation of the data, can
get the whole GISP2 CDROM for free.
#3 Jeff Harvey
January 7, 2005

The fact is that Jaworowski is something of a nutcase – none of his atrocious publcations are in peer-reviewed journals, but (as stated) in wacky garbage like Larouche’s 21st Century S & T. The fact that his nonsense was discussed in the Senate tells me all I need to know about their priorities and scientific acumen. Jaworowski also contributed and introduction to the book, “Global Warming in a Politically Corect Climate”, authored by an old Swedish metallurgist, M. Mikhel Mathiesen. The book is so extraordinarily bad that its like an Ed Wood film: utterly hilarious. Just about every citation (I think there are only 24 in the book) come from Larouche’s rag or from books by Dixy Lee Ray. For writing such an abomination Mathiesen was rewarded with a position as “scientific adviser” to the Idso’s industry funded web site (C02.org). This just shows you how the inarticulate and incompetent stick together.
#4 Louis Hissink
January 7, 2005

Tim, well put, and I’ll deal with it once I have checked your sources.
LH
#5 Louis Hissink
January 7, 2005

Tim, Just reading your first reference – you silly fool – you are clueless. tsk tsk. stick to C++ mate, your are seriously out of your depth.
#6 Louis Hissink
January 7, 2005

Tim, How do you know the measurements were inaccurate?
#7 Tim Lambert
January 7, 2005

Louis, read my post. Everybody else understood it.
#8 Dano
January 7, 2005

Now there’s a treat first thing in the morning: Louis calling Tim a silly fool. Ahhh…

D
#9 William
January 7, 2005

‘ello ‘ello, an odd thing has occured, that comment by “stoat” is me (from my weblog) but I didn’t write it… some kind of auto-pingback software perhaps, I’m a bit unsure. I suppose I’d better check… who knows what else it is up to?

Anyway, an excellent post Tim, I have seen references to Jar in passing before, but hadn’t realised quite how wacky he was, or how easy it was to demonstrate that he was wrong (the art, of course, is to pick the right thing).

FWIW, I was talking to an ice core chemist today, who said that no-one believes the stomatal stuff either…
#10 Yelling
January 7, 2005

I came across Jaworowski in another blog (Quark Soup). A character there had posted a Jaworowski article from 21st as food for thought. A quick read through the article showed even more than normal biases, mis-quotes and plain lack of understanding. I did up a reply to the article and if anyone is interested it can be found here (about 9th entry on Sept 22). It gives you a taste of what Jaworowski produces.

Quark Soup – September – Haiti
#11 Yelling
January 7, 2005

I came across Jaworowski in another blog (Quark Soup). A character there had posted a Jaworowski article from 21st as food for thought. A quick read through the article showed even more than normal biases, mis-quotes and plain lack of understanding. I did up a reply to the article and if anyone is interested it can be found here (about 9th entry on Sept 22). It gives you a taste of what Jaworowski produces.

Quark Soup – September – Haiti
#12 Yelling
January 7, 2005

Opps, please forgive the double post.

Re Stomatal Density, I think the following is the most recient work I have come across on that topic. Essentially, their experiments found no dependance between CO2 and SD.

On the relationship between stomatal characters and atmospheric CO2
#13 Andrew Gray
January 8, 2005

I’d be curious to know – there’s a brief plateau in the green line there, circa 1940-50 – has an explanation been proposed for this?
#14 Ian Gould
January 8, 2005

Andrew,
At a quick guess, World War II, while it generated a lot of emissions in itself, resulted in large parts of European and Japanese industry being destroyed. There was also petrol rationing in many places resulting from naval blockades and the like.
#15 Dano
January 8, 2005

Hey, Yelling: are you sure you don’t share my undergrad degree?!? ) Nice find, sir.

The precise analysis of Yelling’s paper is that plants cannot change their genes in a non-evolutionary time scale to adjust for changing CO2 levels [they just close or open the stomata they have - they don't make more or fewer stomata].

Anyone saying otherwise is full of it.

But let’s not confuse ourselves and state that SD or SI is not useful in the fossil record – it certainly is.

Right, Louis?

D
#16 Ian Gould
January 8, 2005

Question for Louis:
Assuming the wide variability in reported CO2 concentrations prior to ca. 1900 are real and not an artifact, to what do you attribute the reduction in variability post-1900?
#17 Eli Rabett
January 11, 2005

This, of course, raises the interesting issue of which are more reliable, pre-1900 measurements, or hindcasts using state of the art GCMs.
#18 Mike Hollinshead
January 16, 2005

Considering the claims made by correspondents for the scientific objectivity of this blog, I am perturbed by their frequent use of ad hominem arguments e.g. referring to people as dimwits and wackos.

The person who stated that Jaworowxki publishes only in questionable publications should look the list of references in his Hearing testimony more carefully: there are citations for Nature and Environmental Science and Pollution Research, both peer reviewed journals the last time I looked.

I too prefer Callendar’s interpretation of historical CO2 data to Jaworowski’s and subscribe to the notion that given the problems with them it would be better to junk them, as GISS has done with the historical ocean temperature measurments.

In this context, it would be nice to have some comfort with the reliability of the alternative proxy data, such as that obtained from ice cores.

Consequently, I would have found it helpful if someone had addressed the issues of the reliability of ice sampling as a technique which Jaworowski raised: are ice cores invalidated by reason of not being closed systems; does decompression cause the sheeting and migration problems he states; does CO2 escape into the drilling fluid and into the air at the suface when the core is withdrawn; does clathrate formation lead to depletion of CO2 in the ice?

Mike Hollinshead
#19 Tim Lambert
January 16, 2005

Mike, I checked, and nobody here has used the words “dimwit” or “wacko”. Certainly I have not used such language. I see no reason to junk all the historical measurements. Callendar seems to have done a good job of selecting the accurate ones.

If the C02 was escaping into the drilling fluid the measurements should have been all over the place instead of agreeing with each other and direct measurements. Jaworowski’s claims are not plausible.
#20 Louis Hissink
January 18, 2005

Mike H.

Drilling Ice (a rock in other words) has its problems. Loss of gases into the drilling media is accepted.

On average, Co2 loss, from release of pressure from drilling, should not be erratic but a function of pressure.

So, on what evidence do you base your opinion “If the C02 was escaping into the drilling fluid the measurements should have been all over the place instead of agreeing with each other and direct measurements. Jaworowski’s claims are not plausible” on ?
#21 Dano
January 19, 2005

Louis’ hand, meet straw. Straw, meet Louis’ hand. Grasping optional.

Best,

D
#22 jre
January 19, 2005

The sentiment expressed by Mike H. is a good one; as a general rule, it doesn’t help one’s argument to be calling people names. I plead guilty to calling LaRouche contributors a “stable of loonies.” I should feel chastened, and yet …

The curious may go to

21st C. S&T
and judge for themselves. Read about the

latest in cold fusion.
Learn how

Maxwell was a fraud and Einstein was a swindler.
Check out how the “existing dogma of nuclear physics” has been upset by a

new atomic theory based on the Platonic solids.

Now, I enjoy this stuff as much as the next guy, but the question before us is whether Jaworowski deserves to be taken seriously. In my view, he did not add luster to his reputation by publishing in this venue.

As to the article itself, see

Yelling’s review in Quark Soup, cited above.
After Yelling was done with Jaworowski, there was not much left.

Now it is true, as stated by Mike H., that Jaworowski’s

statement
cites two papers in peer-reviewed journals for which he was an author: one 1968 Nature article on lead content in glacier ice and a 1994

review article in Environmental Science and Pollution Research on “Ancient Atmosphere/Validity of Ice Records.”
Frustratingly, that is the one article in the issue for which not even an abstract is given on line. If anyone has read it and can offer an opinion, this would be a good place to do it.

So, all I have to go on at the moment is the fact that this guy published an extraordinarily poor article in a fringe journal, and gave politically motivated testimony to the US Senate including a goofy, tendentious interpretation of the CO₂ data wildly at variance with several good studies all in agreement with each other.

It is only fair to give Jawarowski the benefit of the doubt, but his track record is not helping.
#23 Dano
January 19, 2005

Interestingly, the Journal Environ Sci Pollut Res does not have J.’s article in their archives. I can see a Guardo et al. before the hole and a Jones, KC after the hole. No Jaworowski Z from pp 161-171.

Huh.

Retracted, perhaps.

It certainly appears as if the only time this Environ Sci Pollut Res paper is cited (per Google) is when ol’ Z speaks somewhere. Per ISI, he has 29 article in that DB, but the Environ Sci Pollut Res is not one of them.

Perhaps Louis can bring his prodigious research powers to bear on this issue.

HTH

D
#24 Ian Gould
January 19, 2005

Louis,
Since you’re still following this thread, perhaps you’d like to respond to my earlier question as to the mechanism which caused massive fluctuations in CO2 levels prior to 1900 and which then ceased to operate?
#25 Louis Hissink
January 19, 2005

Ian,
Massive fluctutions in CO2 levels prior to 1900?

I might quote you, please:
“Assuming the wide variability in reported CO2 concentrations prior to ca. 1900 are real and not an artifact, to what do you attribute the reduction in variability post-1900?

Reduction in variability?
1. Reduction in measuring stations
2. Reduction in funds to “un-necessary” activities from a political view, whatever that might be,
3. Change in natural variations of CO2
4. Change in measurement standards
5. Change in other things, of the natural kind of which we know nothing of.
#26 Louis Hissink
January 19, 2005

As a general comment, avoiding specific answers, Jaworowski pointed to one fact – taking core samples of ice at depth produces problematical samples for the reasons he documents.
What ever way you would like to look at it, mechanically coring ice at great depths from a machine at the surface changes the physical state of the ice in the core at that depth.

1. By boring into the ice by mechanical means one needs a lubrication medium, here water.

2. While at elevated pressure down hole, the very act of drilling causes a very localised release of confining pressure due to gravity. This results in very localised changes in pressure and temperature which, because of the physical distance between the drilling tool and the the operators at the surface working the drilling machine, are un-knowable. [In the drilling of near surface rocks, geologists and drillers always assume ignorance - we are sampling the unknown].

By physically releasing confining pressure down hole, the ice reacts physically and physically re-equilibrates to the new Pressure-Temperature Environment.

It does so by “cracking”, or so we assume, since we are not there at the drill tool to observe the facts.

This cracking releases gases as Jaworowksi documents.

Hence CO2 measurements of cored ice measure residual CO2 in the sample, which in itself needs futher scrutiny.

I might add that I have personal experience in drilling into the earth to a depth of 1200 metres.

And discovered a nickel deposit too.
#27 Ian Gould
January 19, 2005

“changes in Change in natural variations of CO2 … Change in other things, of the natural kind of which we know nothing of.”
In other words, you have no explanation.
#28 Louis Hissink
January 20, 2005

yes Ian, as a scientist, I admit to ignorance which is usually alleviated by further study to lessen that ignorance.
#29 Louis Hissink
January 20, 2005

The Layering observed in ice cores is due not to diurnal changes in climate, but to unpredictable depositions of snow. Hence ice-cores are not accurate stratigraphical markers.
#30 jre
January 20, 2005

There seems to be a thick cloud of smoke drifting in from somewhere. Let’s see if we can improve the visibility.

Louis — you have, I think, stated your hypothesis for the high variability of CO2 measurements pre-1900 and the low variability today. I can’t make any sense of it, so I will suggest a different hypothesis.

1) The pre-1900 CO2 measurements are highly variable because they are, by and large, inaccurate.

2) We know better today how to measure CO2 concentration than we did 100+ years ago. As a result, modern measurements are more accurate and, unsurprisingly, more consistent.

3) That’s why the Mauna Loa and Law Dome measurements agree with each other.

4) Paleoclimatologists are quite familiar with the effects of pressure, and cross-check their results for this (and other possibly confounding factors) by

a variety of methods.

5) The layering of ice cores is indeed due to highly predictable seasonal variations. The boundaries between layers can be established accurately by any of several methods. Chief among these is

measurement of the relative concentrations of the 18O and 16O isotopes of oxygen.
This ratio is easily measured and varies as predictably as … well, the seasons.

How’s that?

And, Louis — if you are really and truly not just trying to throw up a cloud of smoke to obscure the results of good science for political purposes, how about suggesting an improved method of your own devising to overcome all these supposed problems and get the true numbers?
#31 Louis Hissink
January 24, 2005

JRE – I notice you supply no link to the Mauna Loa and Law Dome measurements to support your opinion.

As for point 5, how are those concentrations measured? and from what? At a rigorous sampling interval to discern diurnal variations so to as to avoid using them as an unnecessary influence?
#32 Louis Hissink
January 24, 2005

JRE, may I quote your sources?

For each data point, four to six samples from the same depth were dry extracted mechanically. Each sample has a volume of 4~6 cm3. The air was condensed into small cold traps cooled by a cryogenic cooler to about 32 K. Standardization was achieved by admitting standard air samples over the crushed ice mimicking the conditions of the crushing (in high pressure tanks with CO2 concentrations of 330, 240, and 163 ppm). After all traps were full they were warmed up to about -70 degree C and dispensed into an IR cell at constant pressure and temperature with a bellows assembly for scanning. The absorption was measured with an InSb detector. The IR cell, the detector, and a grating spectrometer (for single mode emission selection) were enclosed in a plexiglass housing flushed with nitrogen to expel the air.

What “air”.

The air obatained from the ice samples? Not stated at all in the quote you posted, probably because you did not read the quote.

I’ll quote yourself on this one “The layering of ice cores is indeed due to highly predictable seasonal variations. The boundaries between layers can be established accurately by any of several methods. Chief among these is measurement of the relative concentrations of the 18O and 16O isotopes of oxygen. This ratio is easily measured and varies as predictably as … well, the seasons.”, because I have read it and you seem to be some difficulty with it.

Sorry JRE, quote something you have some understanding of, not, as I empahasise here, ”
knowledge” of.
#33 Louis Hissink
January 24, 2005

JRE, while I am at it, “For each data point, four to six samples from the same depth were dry extracted mechanically”, which, in isolation, seems reasonable. But how were the data points defined? By depth along core? Or by predetermined protocols?

JRE make sure you know what your target is before shooting – it might shoot back.
#34 Tim Lambert
January 24, 2005

Louis, is there some point you are trying to make?
#35 Louis Hissink
January 24, 2005

Tim, Yes, since you seem to be aware of it, spell it out.
#36 Nabakov
January 24, 2005

“Louis, is there some point you are trying to make?”

He’s trying to point out the gun is loaded by staring down the barrel for a glinting bullet.
#37 Louis Hissink
January 24, 2005

Yes Tim, I made it and it has dissapeared.
#38 Dano
January 24, 2005

Louis, have you fired one or more of your comedy writers?

I came here this gloomy Monday morning to get my dose of kooky Louie.

Instead, I see his writers have been replaced by cranky drinkies.

Please apologize and ask for your old writers to come back.

Thank you.

D
#39 jre
January 25, 2005

[... must ... restrain ... keys of death ...]
Louis – I am starting to believe that having this debate with you is cruel to both of us.
Nevertheless, for some twisted reason I must continue.
Your first comment was

JRE – I notice you supply no link to the Mauna Loa and Law Dome measurements to support your opinion.

For crying out loud, Louis, those were the very links Tim gave in the opening post. Did you read it?
Next!

You stated earlier that CO2 measurements from ice cores were invalid because of “localised changes in pressure and temperature.”
I pointed out that the Scripps researchers (to choose just one example) had described in detail how they standardized their measurements by extracting air samples from the core and also admitting standard air samples over the crushed ice under conditions mimicking the conditions of the crushing — at high pressure with known concentrations of CO2.
And your response was

What “air”.
The air obatained from the ice samples? Not stated at all in the quote you posted, probably because you did not read the quote.

Oh, gee, not having read the quote, I didn’t realize that the researchers never specified where the air came from, so maybe it was from their air mattresses or somewhere else yes, it was from the ice samples, you blockhead!

Excuse me, where was I?

Oh, yes, the 18O / 16O ratio.
I stated that this ratio varies with the seasons.
It does, because temperature varies with the seasons, and because water containing 18O is slightly less likely to evaporate, and slightly more likely to condense, at a given temperature.
To quote the GISP2 page:

Over short time scales the change in temperature from summer to winter produces a very clear oscillation in the 18O/16O ratio.
This oscillation is used to determine the age of the core at different depths, simply by counting the oscillations.
Over longer time periods, this ratio indicates the average temperature of the regions between the evaporation site and the coring site.

And you replied:

I’ll quote yourself on this one [quote], because I have read it and you seem to be some difficulty with it.

(Give me strength … )
Louis, these don’t even qualify as responses.
Until you can come up with some objection to the methodology used in ice core atmosphere measurements beyond “they didn’t explain it so I can understand it”, I think we should consider the matter closed.

With those moles duly whacked, let me get back to CO2. To summarize:
CO2 measurement has come a long way in the past hundred years.
That our measurements are better and more consistent today than they used to be should surprise no one.

To even take Jaworowski (and, by extension, Hissink) seriously, one must believe that a thinking human being looked at the data and found it more credible that some unknown mechanism once caused wild swings in CO2 and then stopped, than that there is more measurement error in older data.

I can’t believe that, no matter how hard I try.
Jaworowski and Hissink knew the conclusion they wanted before they started, did a hilariously poor job of covering it up, and deserve to be laughed off the stage. Period.
#40 Louis Hissink
January 25, 2005

JRE, you might notice that I don’t resort to insults or other ad hominems in my replies.

From your replies above you seem not to know much about the collection of uncontaminated samples, especially when the samples are cored from ice, in water, in which it is impossible to quarantine the solid ice from the surrounding aqueous medium, into which volatiles are released into, from the release of pressure during the drilling process itself, which is unobservable, for obvious reasons.

You cannot guarantee me that the ice core sample is pristine, and has not interacted with its own liquidus phase during the sampling operation.

On this basis both Jawarowski and I would agree that the sampling processes are inadequate for the purposes of measuring volatiles whose phase changes occur at the triple point of the ternary system – solid-liquid-gas.

Your blustering comment above simply demonstrates that you have no practical experience of the matters you opine.
#41 jre
January 26, 2005

JRE, you might notice that I don’t resort to insults or other ad hominems in my replies.

You might get more sympathy with that line if you had not been calling Tim a “silly fool” earlier in this thread.

Just the same, Louis, you are entitled to be haughty, since I was obnoxious.
But enough of this good-natured badinage; let’s check the score:

(1) In the opening post, Tim pointed to CO2 data from

Mauna Loa
and

Law Dome,
taken independently by two groups of researchers, and showing remarkably good agreement. The data clearly shows an increasing trend in CO2 concentration — a fact inconsistent with your thesis that CO2 concentration is not really increasing.
You have not offered a hint of an explanation of why this should be so.

(2) You stated earlier that ice core data was invalid because of “localised changes in pressure and temperature.” I pointed to a

page
where the Scripps researchers, as part of a study of CO2 from air samples trapped in ice cores, described their procedure for standardizing their measurements by mimicking the crushing conditions at high pressure.
Your response was to ask if the air came from the ice samples.

(3) You stated that “ice-cores are not accurate stratigraphical markers.”
I countered that this was false, and pointed to a

page
where the GISP2 researchers set forth in great detail exactly how and why the d18O ratio in ice cores varies predictably with the seasons.
You responded with a reply so incoherent I cannot even tell what you were trying to say.

(4) And last, but not least, Ian Gould challenged you to suggest some mechanism responsible for the variability in CO2 measurements prior to 1900 which ceased thereafter.
You responded with a list that bears quoting:

1. Reduction in measuring stations 2. Reduction in funds to
“un-necessary” activities from a political view, whatever that might
be, 3. Change in natural variations of CO2 4. Change in measurement
standards 5. Change in other things, of the natural kind of which we
know nothing of.

May I state the obvious? 1, 2, and 4 are characteristics of the measurement system. 3 and 5 are non-explanations.

I make it Deltoid 4, Hissink zip.

And you wonder why people don’t take you seriously?
#42 Louis Hissink
January 27, 2005

JRE,

I don’t take you seriously.

1. Tim’s quotation of the Michael Mann climate site is silly – the architect of the IPPC hockey Stick is referred to as an impartial source.

2. In the opening post, Tim pointed to CO2 data from Mauna Loa and Law Dome but Law Dome does not quote any CO2 measurement but Tsunami data. Blockhead I am not.

Ice-cores – see SMERSH this weekend.

Seasonal Os variations – no argument with the theory, you showed no data to support your theory.

Ian Gould’s comments are considered in SMERSH 30 Jan 2005.

Not taken seriously? then why so much effort to contradict me?
#43 Tim Lambert
January 27, 2005

Louis, the blue underliney text is a link. If you click the link I gave for Law Dome you will find CO2 data.

You are, as usual, confused. I quoted William Connolley who is not the same person as Michael Mann.
#44 Steve
January 28, 2005

Louis says: “then why so much effort to contradict me?”

I’ve been wondering the same thing Louis.

Whack a mole gets dull pretty quick, no?

Tim, given the standard of climate skeptic you are currently attracting, you should either be:

very proud (the competent climate skeptics are too afraid to come here) or else

concerned (the competent climate skeptics do not take you seriously) or else

bored (there are no competent climate skeptics anymore)
#45 jre
January 28, 2005

JRE,
I don’t take you seriously.

There is a certain symmetry there.

Blockhead I am not.

Louis, I sense that you are still cheesed about that unfortunate
“blockhead” remark of mine.

Well, I apologize.
Some thoughts are better left unspoken.

Seasonal Os variations – no argument with the theory, you showed no data to support your theory.

… sigh … Louis, try the second blue underliney thingy I provided
at the top of this thread.

Not taken seriously? then why so much effort to contradict me?

Ah, now you have asked an important question.

It is because you and Zbigniew Jaworowski have wrongly and inexcusably
accused several honest researchers of a breach of scientific
integrity.

When we read his statement, we find phrases such as “The modelers
ignored the evidence … “, “… a biased selection of data
…”,”Improper manipulation of data, and arbitrary rejection of
readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea …”, and “misuse of
science.”

Surely you know that them’s fightin’ words.

If you and Jaworowski had offered any evidence that Callendar, Mann
and an unnamed cast of thousands “supported from the annual pool of
many billion ‘climatic’ dollars” had in fact cherry-picked the data
to support “the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming”, then
they would be rightly condemned as having abused their trust.

But you haven’t supplied any evidence that this is so, much
less the kind of evidence you would need to support such a serious
accusation.

Your theory of skullduggery in the climate science community requires
that CO2 levels varied between 300 and 550 ppm within the space of a
year before 1880, and then stopped doing it (though we shouldn’t ask
why).

It requires we believe that Callendar cherry-picked the data in 1958
to show a rising trend in CO2,
and then that measurements at Mauna Loa starting about that time
appearing to continue the trend were somehow fudged by climate
scientists eager to fit their “pre-conceived idea”, etc.

It requires that another group of researchers, in another part of the
globe, using an entirely different research tool, managed to
coordinate their fudging with the Mauna Loa researchers so
well that the two curves coincided.

On top of all that, it requires us to believe that the ice-core
researchers have never heard of clathrates or cracking in samples,
though both are discussed at length in (for example) literature cited
in the

GISP2 bibliography.
(See Tim’s comment above to see what that blue underlined text just above is for.)

In response to a very large and compelling body of research indicating
that CO2 levels really are rising, contrary to your argument, you
have offered exactly how much carefully reasoned and well supported
counter-argument?

Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Bupkis. The square root of … well, you get it.

So — you raise a very good point:
Since your whole theory of widespread dishonesty in the climate
science community appears to be a silly and vacuous fiction, supported by a
tissue of vague, hand-waving allegations and (as the debate
progresses) by a series of whack-a-mole distractions, why would anyone
in his right mind spend ten seconds trying to answer it?

Because this is not only hooey, it is scurrilous hooey, and by God,
someone should get up on his hind legs and say so.
#46 Louis Hissink
January 28, 2005

JRE – might I give you a hint – think about ice, and why it cracks when confining pressures are released?

Sure CO2 levels are rising, no argument there.

Never stated otherwise.

Just disagree that this fact will result in an increase of the earth’s temperature.
#47 Louis Hissink
January 28, 2005

Tim,

D’oh, I clicked it, got a link, and as above – I am not wasting my time searching irrelevant waffle for CO2 data – or is this an indication of your precision of thought?

Incidentally nice facsimile of TechCentral Station, but as the Ford Motor company some decades ago commented when GMH copied the Ford Thunderbird roofline, in national newspaper advertisements,

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”.
#48 Ian Gould
January 28, 2005

<<Sure CO2 levels are rising, no argument there.>>
Louis, this ENTIRE argument is about your claim that the data doesn’t show an increase over time.

If you accept CO2 levels are rising you might want to retract your claim in your blog that data was deliberately manipulated to create a false impression of such as rise.
#49 Louis Hissink
January 28, 2005

Ian, I have never claimed CO2 did not rise – your ball
#50 jre
January 29, 2005

Whack!
#51 Ian Gould
January 29, 2005

No, looking back at your original post I notice that you simply reprinted approvingly Jaworski’s claim that the level in the 19th century was higher than today and that researchers had manipulated the data to suggest otherwise.
#52 jre
January 29, 2005

Louis also said, in the same page (second comment):

The above graph looks like a rising curve? If anything it looks more like a general decrease since 1800, based on a few very high values around the + 500 ppmv in the 19th century.
#53 Steve
January 29, 2005

Louis.

Please.

Just stop for a second. Just stop.

Admitting an error or retracting a statement doesn’t mean you are a bad person.

Being able to admit you are wrong will make people think better of you, not worse!

You can do it!

(I keep visiting this thread because I enjoy torturing myself, and this is even better than burning my eyes with cigarette butts)
#54 Louis Hissink
January 29, 2005

Good.

1. 19th century CO2 measurements were that – measurements. Representative? No one can comment on that, but any measurement is better than no measurement.

Jawrowski did not manipulate the data, Callendar did.

Steve, no problem admitting error but in my area of expertise, I do it all the time – called the scientific method. Have another try.
#55 Louis Hissink
January 29, 2005

JRE, so you linked to my copying of a graph and annotated “whack”. What, you are a “whacker”?
#56 Louis Hissink
January 29, 2005

Ian, Jaworowski did not claim, he merely reported the literature.
#57 jre
January 29, 2005

Jaworowski did not claim, he merely reported the literature.

Nonsense.
The central theme of Jaworowski’s

statement
was that climate scientists had fudged the data to “fit the
pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming”, as you know well.

Callendar did not “manipulate the data”, as you state.

He set forth a priori criteria for excluding inaccurate
measurements, then followed them.

Subsequent measurements show that he was right.

It is encouraging to see you concede that CO2 levels are rising.

Not quite a breakthrough, but we are making progress.
#58 Ian Gould
January 30, 2005

“The encircled values…were arbitrarily selected” sounds like a claim to me.
#59 Louis Hissink
January 30, 2005

JRE – which is what Callender did, created a straw man, he then proceeded to destroy it.

As for CO2 measurements rising, sure – that is what the data show. And from historical data they also decrease.

As for fudging data, the latest data to be published on GRL suggests it is not fudging but plain incompetence. My impressions of course, to be rejected as a paid up member of the Lavoisier Group and as an active participant in the globally pervasive mining industry.
#60 Louis Hissink
January 30, 2005

JRE, Mind though as Stephen McIntyre is a mining analyst (shock horror), it is noteworthy that he sensed unusual doings with the Mann et al (1998) curve.

I too had the same impression, and it now seems you global warmers are no different to the white shoe brigade populating QLD, peddling their specious projects.
#61 Tim Lambert
January 30, 2005

Ah yes, the McKitrick and McIntyre paper that says that you get the hockey stick from random data. Odd, I made the same argument.
#62 jre
January 30, 2005

[Callendar] created a straw man, he then proceeded to destroy it.

Wow — that statement appears to be, in Pauli’s famous phrase, “not even false.”
Care to elaborate on what the “straw man” created by Callendar might be?
#63 Steve
January 31, 2005

“and it now seems you global warmers are no different to the white shoe brigade populating QLD, peddling their specious projects. ”

This is an ad hominem Louis. You mightn’t realise it, but you make ad hominem arguments all the time.

“My impressions of course, [are] to be rejected as a paid up member of the Lavoisier Group and as an active participant in the globally pervasive mining industry.”

No that’s not quite true Louis. Your impressions are to be rejected not because of your affiliations, but because your impressions are nonsensical, poorly argued, and poorly backed up with good research.

And you make dodgy appeals to authority too – you think that being a mining analyst or a diamond fossicker somehow makes you an authority on rational thought about climate change. You constantly refer to your geology background as though it is the only reason you can come up with why people should listen to you.
#64 Nabakov
January 31, 2005

Has it occurred to anyone here that Louie’s probably getting paid by the comment not the content.

He probably needs to show the Lavoisier Group he’s getting the Google hit rate up on global warming FUD, otherwise his retainer gets harder and harder to tease out of Hugh Morgan at el.

It’s not like he’s gonna be there out in the field much any more, vamping up another Poseidon.

The knees are alway the first to go, right Louie?
#65 Dano
January 31, 2005

Yeeees, Nabakov could be close to it, couldn’t he?

Billable hours in the climate fight. I like it. Volume of content matters, not quality. Any old thing will do. And Louis takes that and stretches it to the maximum.

D
#66 Louis Hissink
February 1, 2005

Er, Steve, geology is the study of the earth, its palaeoclimate, and the reconstruction of its history. That is what I was trained in. I have been studying it since 1960. p>
Your ball
#67 Simon
February 3, 2005

Er, Louis, I think you missed Steve’s point. You don’t make coherent, scientifically sound arguments. Instead you refer to your background as this somehow instantly validates your argument. It doesn’t. Notice how nobody else here refers to their background when they make an argument – they don’t need to because their argument either stands up to a bit of debate or it doesn’t.
#68 Louis Hissink
February 3, 2005

Simon, I read Steve’s comment – and so far he has not produced any evidence for his assertion.

Until that happens, what do you expect me to do – lie down to be metaphorically kicked in the guts?

Steve wrote “No that’s not quite true Louis. Your impressions are to be rejected not because of your affiliations, but because your impressions are nonsensical, poorly argued, and poorly backed up with good research. ” Now the evidence please.
#69 Louis Hissink
February 3, 2005

Well Tim, if random data produce the hockey stick using Mann’s specialised method of determining PCA’s. then his much quoted paper is baloney.
#70 Louis Hissink
February 3, 2005

As for Nabakov’s comments, well, all I can say is that I don’t. And we complain about my use of ad hominems – hmm, wonders never cease.
#71 Louis Hissink
February 3, 2005

I might add that Tim’s opening comment here that it was “my” graph when in fact it plainly was never, is itself a totally fraudulent comment. And Tim then adds his own embellishments to a graph which Jaworowski quoted ( and cited in his references).

Need to be better than that when criticising your opponents.
#72 Tim Lambert
February 3, 2005

I am somewhat bemused that Louis has accused me of fraud for saying that it was his graph even though I wrote this: “However, if you examine Jaworowski’s graph, it is clear that most of the CO2 measurements shown on the graph are inaccurate.”
#73 zoot
February 3, 2005

He must be getting paid by the comment. Never mind the quality, feel the width.
#74 Louis Hissink
February 4, 2005

Alas, I receive no payment for any comment but why this is believed is mysterious. Obviously original thought is unexpected here.
#75 Louis Hissink
February 4, 2005

I’ve added the green and red lines to his graph-I’ll explain what they are below.)

Tim, repeat that ?
#76 Tim Lambert
February 4, 2005

Fine. I changed it to “the graph he presents”. Are you happy now?
#77 Louis Hissink
February 4, 2005

Tim, the very act of changing a comment once published is censorial. Obviously you don’t get it.
#78 Tim Lambert
February 4, 2005

There is no pleasing you. You complain because it says “his” and then you caomplain some more because it doesn’t. My policy on editting posts is here. The change I made was not substantive since I doubt anyone read it the way you tried to make it sound. And I don’t think you know what censorial means.
#79 Theo Richel
May 6, 2005

As a journalist from the Netherlands I read the comments on your blog about the works of Zbigniew Jaworowski. I am trying to find out who is right here and although I certainly havent reached a conclusion, I have been in touch with Jaworowski before about another subject and I must say that he promptly delivered the literature I asked for. So I was kind of suspicious when I read on your blog about a commenter (Dano) who searched for an article by J in Environ.Scie.Poll.Res and couldnt find it and suggested that it might be retracted. Well apparently it isnt. You find it with the link below under the title ‘Ancient atmosphere – validity of ice records’. There is no author mentioned, but that is apparently an error since when you click the article Jaworowski’s name is there. The piece was a cover story so at least the editor was happy with it at that particular time.

http://www.scientificjournals.com/sj/espr/inhalt/Band/1/Ausgabe/3/Jahrgang/1994
#80 Jeff Harvey
May 9, 2005

Theo,
Jaworowski is another of the cherry-picking contrarians who has written pieces for abominable anti-scientific rags like “21st Century Science and Technology”; this magazine is the brainchild of Lyndon LaRouche, a millionaire eccentric who has espoused all kinds of wacky ideas over the past 30 years. Jaworowski is an obscure academic who has published most of his nonsense in non-peer reviewed sources (as above). Note also that he provides an introduction for Mikhel Mathiesen’s abominable book, “Global Warming in a Politically Correct Climate” which references just about every appalling source to bolster its anti-environmental arguments. This book, as hard as it may seem, may also exceed Bjorn Lomborg’s “The Skeptical Environmentalist” for sheer awfulness and inaccuracy.

Like you, I live in The Netherlands (although I am British-Canadian) and you should be well aware of the burgeoning anti-environmental movement here, led by economists like Hans LaBohm, science writers like Simon Rozendaal, and organistations like HAN. I will present a talk at a conference on climate change in Amsterdam on this very topic – you should come along and listen.
#81 Dano
May 9, 2005

Well, I can view the journal and when I commented above, the article was not there. I even stated which papers were on either side of the J. paper.

Now, however, the paper is viewable.

This J. paper is a review article from 1994, and his conclusions have since been overturned. I guess folks can still point to this paper – I won’t mind, as it would be a big clue as to the pointer’s understanding of the issue.

Best,

D
#82 Theo Richel
May 10, 2005

Jeff, when and where will this talk be in Amsterdam?
#83 Mark Bahner
May 10, 2005

Theo Richel writes, “As a journalist from the Netherlands I read the comments on your blog about the works of Zbigniew Jaworowski. I am trying to find out who is right here…”

Let’s see, how to put this in technical terms…?

Technically speaking, Zbigniew Jaworowski’s graph is a complete and utterly bogus piece of cr@p.

This one isn’t even close. Tim Lambert is right, and Jaworowski is…well, I would say “insane,” but my background isn’t in psychiatry.

Bogus curves

Mark Bahner (environmental engineer)
#84 Jeff Harvey
May 10, 2005

Theo,
It is on the 27th, but I will get the exact venue and details to you on aother post.
#85 jre
May 11, 2005

Dano is correct about the availability of the Jaworowski paper.

In February, back when this food-fight was in full swing, I searched all over for a copy of the paper. Ultimately, after trying and failing to locate a copy at the Library of Congress (kind of the library of last resort), I e-mailed ESPR and ordered a copy. ESPR’s staffer responded that it did not exist. I pointed out that it was the cover story for 1 ESPR (3) 1994. She then very generously and courteously sent me a pdf version for free, apologizing for the poor quality. I see that they have now added it to the web page.

It is my impression that ESPR has been hoping that this paper would be quietly forgotten. In 2 ESPR (2) 1995, a letter appears from none other than Hans Oeschger, pointing out that just about every statement in the Jaworowski article was astoundingly, egregiously false. I have read the paper and followed up on a good many of the references. It is just a rehash of Jaworowski et al.‘s (better, but still wrong) article in The Science of the Total Environment 114 227-284 (1992).

Jaworowski has been on this “ice core researchers are all idiots” kick for something like 15 years now, and it has not aged well.
#86 Theo Richel
May 11, 2005

Funny. I cannot find Oesgers letter on the ESPR-site. Like Jaworowski Oesger is not mentioned in the author index and in the issue 2 1995 his letter cannot be found. The page I am referring to is:
http://www.scientificjournals.com/sj/espr/inhalt/Band/2/Ausgabe/2/Jahrgang/1995
#87 Dano
May 11, 2005

Well done, jre.

I shall get a copy of that letter to quote when the tools parrot a website citing the J. paper. Hat’s off sir.

D
#88 jre
May 11, 2005

The Oeschger letter is actually in 2 ESPR (1) 1995, pp. 60-61, not in issue (2) as I mistakenly said above. My apologies.

It opens with the following:

It is with great hesitation that I write in reply to the paper by JAWOROWSKI; this paper deserves little attention.

And it just gets better from there.
#89 Eli Rabett
May 11, 2005

Unfortunately it also is not on the web site….
#90 Ender
May 11, 2005

jre
I had a similar conversation with Mr Hissink and can understand your frustration. I was also provoked into a rare flame. After reading this post I realised what I was up against and gave up. I just left a parting shot.
It is here http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000575.html#comments
#91 Tim Lambert
May 11, 2005

jre, the letter isn’t on the ESPR web page. Maybe you could suggest to them that now that they have posted J’s article, they should post the letter as well?
#92 jre
May 11, 2005

A splendid idea; will do.
#93 Alex J
May 25, 2005

On stomatal frequency, perhaps someone could eleborate on why this is seen as an invalid indicator, considering here
and here, referred to in this discussion, now into it’s 6th page. Although I think much of what Jaworowski has presented is highly questionable, what makes his usage of the stomatal frequency method flawed? Thanks.
#94 Dano
May 25, 2005

I hadn’t read that Am. J. Bot. paper. Even with that paper, the work is still preliminary, and still is at this point species-specific. Compare that to annual rings, which covers perennial woody plants. This means one can’t make sweeping statements.

Basing an argument on preliminary findings is what the septics and doubt-sowers do.

D
#95 jre
June 9, 2005

As Tim suggested, I did ask ESPR to post Hans Oeschger’s letter on the appropriate web page. I see that they have now done so.

I have speculated that the editors of ESPR may not have been avid for the world to remember how they were schnookered by Jaworowski, and that this was why the paper was so hard to find.

But I have to admit that the journal has been perfectly open and more than responsive to every request for information. When I asked for the paper, they found it and sent it to me for free. They then made it freely available on their web page without being asked. When I asked that they post the Oeschger letter, they did so. You can’t ask for more than that.

ESPR, I salute you.
#96 Brooks Hurd
October 3, 2005

Jawarowski had more than one point in his paper. I find another of his points quite persuasive, since I and many other engineers face similar problems in trying to analyze data remote from the original site of collection.

Jawarowski states that deep ice cores will, upon decompression, fracture and lose dissolved gases. Consequently, when these ice cores are analyzed in a lab, the measured gas concentrations will be lower than the gas concentrations in ice the cores when they were in their original state. Atmospheric CO2 levels determined from these deep ice cores will thus be lower than were the original CO2 levels.

This occurs, because the cores become supersaturated during driling. This is the solid state version of nitrogen narcosis, the malady effecting deep sea divers when they decompress too rapidly and bubbles form in their blood. Bubbles forming in an ice core will fracture the ice and escape.
#97 jre
October 20, 2005

Jawarowski had more than one point in his paper. I find another of his points quite persuasive, since I and many other engineers face similar problems …

That you find his argument persuasive is not surprising. Jaworowski puts up a plausible front for each of his claims, but none of them will stand up to scrutiny. In this point, as in the others, Jaworowski is purely, simply, and inexcusably, wrong.

Here is a general comment, to be followed by a specific one. Jaworowski’s arguments tend to be framed so as to appeal to those with some knowledge of the physical sciences, but no specific knowledge of the subject at hand. Liquid water? Sounds bad! Extensive cracking? Big problem! However — and don’t take my word for this, look it up — none of these claims will survive even a cursory examination of the literature. Ask yourself this: how likely is it that ice core researchers would have been unaware of something like the variation of gas solubility with pressure?

Now for the specific response. You said:

Jawarowski states that deep ice cores will, upon decompression, fracture and lose dissolved gases. Consequently, when these ice cores are analyzed in a lab, the measured gas concentrations will be lower than the gas concentrations in ice the cores when they were in their original state. Atmospheric CO2 levels determined from these deep ice cores will thus be lower than were the original CO2 levels.

We do not have to guess at whether this is so, because the proposition is testable.

1) Have ice core samples fractured and lost “dissolved gases”? No, because researchers select samples with intact bubbles for study. This is not some mysterious rite known only to the initiated. It is standard practice. Jaworowski has no excuse for not knowing (or choosing to ignore) this fact.

2) Are “[atmospheric] CO2 levels determined from these deep ice cores … lower than were the original CO2 levels”? No. There are many factors that may affect CO2 levels in ice cores, but researchers understand them and can correct for them quite well — well enough to make the study of ice cores a productive and reliable discipline. Jaworowski falsely and deceptively points to every problem he can find as a potential show-stopper. It won’t wash, because his hypothesis — that cracking, dissolution under pressure and clathrate fractionation overwhelm the factor under study — is itself testable. Have a look at CO2 variation in a deep ice core. Now see if you can develop a theory of how this resulted from cracking, dissolution, fractionation, etc. Don’t forget to explain how and why the fluctuations are correlated with geologic evidence of glaciation and the temperature record in ocean sediments.

Much of this feigned skepticism about climatic research reminds me of creationist attacks on evolutionary biology. “Hey!” someone will say, “have you considered this [as yet unexplained discrepancy] and doesn’t it mean that we can’t explain how life originated, and should consider intelligent design as an alternative?” That would only be an honest argument in the alternative universe where the arguer doesn’t have 140 years of evidence in the biological sciences to overcome. Many (not all) climate skeptics sound the same theme, and it is painfully obvious where they are going:

(a) If we can’t trust the CO2 record, then we can’t reconstruct ancient climates,

(b) and if we can’t do that, then we can’t be sure that the presently observed changes aren’t of natural origin,

(c) and if we can’t be sure of that, then we don’t know enough to do anything about it, right?

Bullshit.
#98 z
October 20, 2005

“Anyone familiar with the LaRouche family of publications is aware that their contributors are well, a stable of loonies.”
Indeed, Larouche is of the same species as Rev. Moon, a couple of levels past Elron Hubbard. For those with shorter memories, Larouche first came to public notice as a fringe leader of the Weathermen (violent faction of the US SDS in the 60s) and has since gone on to political power by discovering such revealing truths as the fact that the Bush family are part of a major international drug peddling cartel, headed by the British Royal Family. Stands to reason that he would fit right in with the asstro-turfers[sic].