Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
Remember EG Beck's dodgy CO2 graph?
You really didn't have to know anything at all about the history and practice of measuring CO2 to deduce that something was wrong with Beck's theory that there were wild fluctuations in CO2 concentration that suddenly ended when the most accurate measurements started. But Energy and Environment published his paper.
Eli Rabett has links to comments from experts Harro Meijer and Ralph Keeling (the son of Charles Keeling), who explain where Beck went wrong. Meijer concludes:
It is shocking that this paper has been able to pass the journal's referee system. "Energy and Environment" apparently has been unable to organise a proper peer review process for this paper, thereby discrediting the journal.
Well, I think E&E was already discredited, but it sure would be interesting to see who they got to review it. Jaworowski, perhaps?
While Keeling asks:
Is it really the intent of E&E to provide a forum for laundering pseudo-science?
Yes. Yes it is.
Politics
Environment
Comments
Now to top that up, they just have to pick 2 data point, ignore everything else, and conclude that oh noez itz globul kooling!!1111!!! (Wait, maybe they did that already. I see an arrow labelled "1857" and another arrow labelled "1957"...)
In related news, "Schulte (2008: in press)" is out. (John Mashey, you there?) I can't access the paper, but the abstract is a hoot:
Oh, really. How did Schulte test for this claim in the first place? Maybe he sorted his patients into two groups, and subjected one of the groups to repeated continuous replays of Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. Or something.
Posted by: bi | March 22, 2008 11:05 AM
Seriously, the only "scientists" who are touting the "global warming alarmist hurts patients, please think of the patients" theory are those from the Steve "I'm full of junk" Milloy camp.
Oh no, even mainstream psychologists are part of the Great Worldwide Satanic Conspiracy! Quick, get L. Ron Hubbard on the horn!
Posted by: bi | March 22, 2008 11:12 AM
First off, that graph is pure genius, it captures the Frasseldoff background perfectly.
Second, I think that E&E must be part of a liberal conspiracy to make skeptics look bad. Nobody in real life is that dumb, at least nobody I know.
Posted by: ben | March 22, 2008 11:27 AM
Sorry, I meant that it captures the Frasseldoff quarter waver perfectly. It's already go the Mauna Loa background on there. :p
Posted by: ben | March 22, 2008 11:29 AM
And yet, ben, those in the denialist camp still cite papers from E&E almost religiously, claiming they're "peer-reviewed" (in name, at least). I actually ran into one about two weeks ago who cited four separate studies, insisting all were peer-reviewed, but he was completely unaware all four came from E&E.
A common thread in denialism is to avoid checking your sources. We see it here with Beck's graph, in which he uncritically accepted the methods of earlier measurements instead of doing the reasonable thing and going "no natural concentration fluctuates that greatly; maybe the measurements are suspect". We see it (perhaps?) with E&E's 'peer-review' process (how else could some of this tripe get past peer-review?). We see it with people citing E&E (as shown above -- I'm currently arguing with another guy who insists that Peiser refuted Oreskes, for instance, since Peiser's website says so... despite that website stopping updating around the same time Tim released the abstracts and Peiser was ripped to shreds).
In fairness, though, sometimes we see this with the zealot warmers, especially those who haven't been scientifically trained. However, in my experience, these people do not have the sheer media attention that the denialists get, so their voices reach fewer people -- not to mention that their general position (i.e. "it's a problem and it's our fault") has the support of mainstream science.
Is it too much to ask people to be critical of their sources, even ones they agree with?
Posted by: Brian D | March 22, 2008 12:42 PM
Oh... and don't get me started on that mudpile that has a nice-sounding title The IPCC Emission Scenarios: An Economic-Statistical Critique (from the January 2008 issue).
Which, as if that's not enough, is just a rehash of the same talking points in IPCC SRES Revisited, which was published in E&E and totally trashed... back in 2003.
Maybe someone should just spoof these idiots, like Sokal did with the PoMos.
Posted by: bi | March 22, 2008 1:17 PM
See? It's an entire vast conspiracy to make denialists look bad. First, they make up E&E to make skeptics look dumb, and then they have more "denialists" cite E&E to make the skeptics look extra dumb. Aha! Told ya, it's a conspiracy!
Posted by: ben | March 22, 2008 1:24 PM
Perhaps we should start calling it "sub-prime science".
Posted by: Vagueofgodalming | March 22, 2008 1:32 PM
Using identical methodology to EG Beck, I have a new study which will blow the doors off one of the greatest mathematical conspiracies of all time!
Just take a look at those fluctuations! It's not just irrational, it's completely unpredictable!
Data
Posted by: theo | March 22, 2008 2:31 PM
re: #1 Frank re: Schulte(2008): thanks, I don't often look at E&E so I missed its appearance.
Well, I guess Sonja changed her mind and published it anyway. I'll have to take back what I posted somewhere that maybe there was hope fo E&E yet, if she rejected the article.
Posted by: John Mashey | March 22, 2008 2:42 PM
Second, I think that E&E must be part of a liberal conspiracy to make skeptics look bad. Nobody in real life is that dumb, at least nobody I know.
nice one ben. we could of course look at all the other papers published by sceptics in peer reviewed magazins. oops, very few remain...
did i get you right, that you claim the Loehle paper should be ignored?
Posted by: sod | March 22, 2008 3:44 PM
"Told ya, it's a conspiracy!"
"When a true genius appears in the world, You may know him by this sign, that the dunces Are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathan Swift
Posted by: z | March 22, 2008 4:35 PM
Here's why the sun cannot be responsible for global warming: It does not exist!! http://www.revisionism.nl/Sun/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm Yet, try to get this stunning information published; the AGW skeptic cartel will not permit.
THE MAD REVISIONIST: We do not recruit; we convince. Truth has no need of coercion.
Posted by: z | March 22, 2008 4:39 PM
Theo, thank you. That was awesome.
(It's a shame your data doesn't include a massive blip for that "pi is exactly 3" joke a while back....)
Posted by: Brian D | March 22, 2008 6:10 PM
You're all just a bunch of conspiracy deniers. Deny that, I dare you!
Posted by: ben | March 22, 2008 7:47 PM
"You're all just a bunch of conspiracy deniers. Deny that, I dare you!" ....wait, what?! is too busy listening to Goblin to care anyway...
Posted by: Laser Potato | March 22, 2008 8:30 PM
On the Climate Skeptic mailing list Sonja B.C. OFFERED a potential E&E author a choice between submitting a peer-reviewed vs. non-peer-reviewed article. I think it was O. "Iron Sun" Manuel.
Shit happens differently over there.
Posted by: bigcitylib | March 22, 2008 9:27 PM
Wadda yah mean no one pays any attention to Beck, why that paper was real big for our friends from the Nongovernmental (no one was silly enough to have them) International Panel on Climate Change. It's a game of reverse telephone, bootstrap foolishness into other papers on the bet that no one will RTFR as snicker.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | March 22, 2008 10:03 PM
Dude! fix your grammar!
"You really didn't have to know anything at all about the history and practice of measuring CO2 to deduce that ? was something wrong ? Beck's theory that there were wild fluctuations in CO2 concentration that suddenly ended when the most accurate measurements started. But Energy and Environment published his paper."
H "entropy------>0"
Posted by: huuan | March 22, 2008 11:12 PM
More wonders from the latest issue of E&E:
This is so full of stupid that I don't even know where to start.
How about the utter confusion between a priori probability and a posteriori probability?
Or the idea that the measurement of any quantity which initially has a large confidence interval absolutely must converge to somewhere near the means in order to count as "unbiased"?
Or the common canard that "climatologists over-estimate global warming in their forecasts, and successive forecasts tend to be more and more conservative"? (Oh right, I just recalled that denialist logic doesn't have to be consistent.)
Wha...
Posted by: bi | March 22, 2008 11:37 PM
RE: Carbon Dioxide in Real Air.
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as determined by analysis of ambient air at Mauna Loa is reported for "Standard Dry Air" which is air at 273.2 K and 1 atm pressure and is comprised of nitrogen, oxygen and the inert gases. These are the reference conditions always used for reporting the composition of the atmosphere based on analysis of ambient air at a particular site by various methods. The value is only valid for Mauna Loa and bear no relationship to the concentration of CO2 in "real air" at any other site. "Real air" is term for ambient air at the intake ports of air seperation plants and is used in the HVAC industries. GO:http://www.uigi.com/air.html for more info about real air.
In general, the composition and physical properties of real air are quite site specfic, variable and depend primarily on elevation and fluctuating temperature, air pressure, and absolute humidity and to a lessor extent on the seasons and weather, site surface and geophysical features (e.g., ocean, mountains, desert, forests, cropland, urbanization, etc) and on biological and human activities. Clouds and temperature of bodies of water will also effect the concentration of CO2 in the air in their vicinity.
For example, if standard dry air is heated to 30 deg C the mole number declines by about 10% but the relative ratios of the gases in the real air will remain about the same. This is origin of the phase "well-mixed gases in the troposphere."
Standard dry air has 388 ml of pure CO2/cu. meter. At 30 deg C this value drops to 350 ml/cu. meter. If the air were to become saturated with water vapor (ca, 4% by volume), the amount of CO2 declines to about 336 ml/cu. meter
Air pressure declines about 1 psi per 2000 ft increase in elevation. This would lower the density of the air and thus the absolute amount of the gasses per unit volume. However, air temperature drops about 6 deg C per 2000 ft. increase in elevation. This would increase the density of air. Thus the absolute amount of the gases per unit volume of air becomes a complex function of these variables as well as the above mentioned fluctuating temperature, air pressure and absolute humidity.
Since clouds have a high surface area and CO2 is quite soluble in water, the amount of CO2 in the air will be altered and depend the cloud density, i.e, the amount of water per cubic meter. If the clouds move into warmer air and dissipate, the dissolved CO2 will be released to air. If the clouds move into cooler air and rain is formed, the dissovled CO2 will be transported to the surface and its disposition will depend on that surface. Over the oceans the CO2 will mix in the water quickly. Over the land, however, the nature of the surface will effect whether the CO2 is retained in the water (e.g., porous soil) or released back to the air (for example, hot concrete or rocks or plant leaves, etc).
Over water the amount of CO2 in the air will be influenced by the temperature of the upper layers. The solubility of CO2 declines rapidly with increasing water temperature and can be about 60% lower in water at 30 deg C than water at 0 deg C. As warm tropical water moves to the poles, its temperature slowly drops and by the time it reaches the polar region the water temperature can be about 0 deg C, and can hold about 2.5 times as much CO2 as the warm tropical water. How much CO2 is absorbed will depend on air presssure, wind, wave action, salinity and biological activity, etc.
Biological activity will affect the amount of CO2 in the air. In particular, green plants from alga to big trees fix CO2 in the daytime, but all animals and non-photosynthetic microbes respire. At night all plants and animals respire and release CO2.
Human activities will alter local and regional concentration of CO2 in the air. For example, in Southern California, the concentration of CO2 will start to increase at sunrise, continue to rise throughout the workday, and will be the highest near the end of the evening rush hour after which the concentration of CO2 will start to decline. How the CO2 disperses will depend on the weather (e.g., movement of highs and lows into and out of the region) and the direction of the wind(s). Presence of large airports as well as cement plants will certainly alter the local concentration of CO2.
Commercial and military aviation might alter significantly the concentration of CO2 and water vapor in the upper atmosphere around 35,000 ft in a non-uniform manner since most aircraft generally fly in designated fight paths.
What all of the above boils down to is this: There is no uniform spatial and temporal distribution of CO2 in real or ambient air as expessed in an absolute amount per unit volume of air. Climate models would probably give better results if the absolute amount of CO2 per unit volume is used (e.g., milligrams or millimoles/cubic meter) and some method for estimating the above mentioned spatial and temporal distribution(s). However, the fluctuating concentration of CO2 would be most prevalent in the lower troposphere, epecially over land, and might not apply in upper troposphere above ca. 40,000 ft. Over the middle of oceans (e.g., the Pacific), there will be a more uniform distribtion of CO2 since there is little human activity there.
Since standard dry air exists at no site on the surface of the earth, any "computer modeling experiments" using a value of 388 ppmv will give results that error on the high side.
Posted by: Harold Pierce Jr | March 23, 2008 3:31 AM
Is Harold Pierce arguing that since all CO2 measurements are bogus, therefore Beck's bogus CO2 measurement is not bogus? Great, yet another example of denialist smoke-blowing.
As if that's not enough...
The Mauna Loa Observatory is located in the Pacific. (At 11,135-ft level, to be precise.) You didn't know that?
... And Harold, is Naomi Oreskes fat?
Posted by: bi | March 23, 2008 3:59 AM
I glanced over Beck's paper and didn't find much to criticize, especially the historical review. Most of the CO2 determinations are for local air and not from ambient air at 12,000 ft on mountain in the middle of vast Pacific Ocean or other isolated sites nearby.
The wet chemical methods for CO2 are fairly accurate. The really tricky part of gas analysis is sampling. At any site you have measure air temp, atm. pressure and absolute humidity. You need this info to calculate the mass of air sample taken analysis. You also have to keep checking for leaks in the gas handling equipment and the calibration of guages and metering devices.
Wet chemical methods don't require ref standards as do instrumental methods. For analyses at MLO, a series a master ref gas mixtures in steel cylinders was prepared at SRI, but I haven't founds details of how this was done, what equipement was used and if composition of the mixtures was checked by independent analyses, preferable by a commerical laboratory that specializes in gas analysis.
These instrumental methods are becoming obsolete, because NOAA has statellites that can measure the con. of CO2 over most of the earth and at different heights. Once again I can't find the link to these plots.
Posted by: Harold Pierce Jr | March 23, 2008 5:34 AM
The "la la la la la la I'm not listening" methodology at work, I see.
Harold, is Naomi Oreskes fat?
Posted by: bi | March 23, 2008 5:45 AM
The heavy sarcasm of Rabett and Lambert directed at EG Beck is misdirected as theri source Ralph Keeling's comment in Energy & Environment actually - if unwittingly - provides a complete vindication of Beck's main point, just as Harold Pierce jnr also like Meijer puts Beck's data compilation into context.
Keeling's "refutation" cited with such glee by Rabett & Lambert "clinches" with this statement: "Beck's 11-year averages show large swings, including an increase from 310 to 420 ppm between 1920 and 1945 (Beck's Figure 11). To drive an increase of this magnitude globally requires the release of 233 billion metric tons of C to the atmosphere. The amount is equivalent to more than a third of all the carbon contained in land plants globally".
But Keeling's version of Beck's Fig.11 implies (233/110) that 2.118182 GtC produce an increase in the atmospheric concentration of 1 ppmv. That is almost exactly what is shown in the IPCC's latest Report, AR4, where in Working Group I's chapter 7, Table 7.1, and in the same authors' later paper (Canadell et al., PNAS, October 2007), the average annual net amount of carbon released to the atmosphere in 2000-2006 (4.1 GtC) is associated with an average annual increase of 2.035 ppmv at Mauna Loa, or 2.015 in GtC. Not bad for Dr Beck, for if he is wrong about 1920-1945, then so now are the IPCC and Canadell et al for 2000-2006, not to mention R Keeling.
Keeling's comment that Beck's estimate is equivalent to more than a third of all the carbon contained in land plants globally shows his own carelessness. For given the hoary stylised fact that atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to 382 ppm now, an increase of 102 ppm, which by Keeling's factor implies "release" of 216 GtC, in line with Keeling's comment that it is about "equivalent to more than a third of all the carbon contained in land plants globally". It would seem from Ralph that papa Charles has by his son's figuring spouted as much rubbish as EG Beck.
Moreover Ralph Keeling's unwitting support for Beck's Fig.11 provides a basis for the known global warming that occurred between 1920 and 1945, followed by a cooler period until 1980.
The truth is that both Beck and Keeling snr have made invaluable contributions, the former with collation of historic data, the latter with his Mauna Loa measurements - but the latter are not the whole story any more than Beck's is, as Harold Pierce jnr has shown so clearly here.
And now for the usual tirades of personal abuse from the majority of the contributors to this site, none of which will try to refute Keeling's support of Beck.
Posted by: Tim Curtin | March 23, 2008 6:20 AM
More of the "la la la la la la I'm not listening" denialist methodology.
Oh yeah, Keeling "unwittingly" showed that, despite the words he actually said, deep in his heart he was really supporting Beck's thesis. And he'd have unreservedly expressed his complete, 100% support, if not for unspecified and undetectable threats of reprisal from the Great Worldwide Satanic Conspiracy headed by Al Gore the Antichrist.
Posted by: bi | March 23, 2008 6:34 AM
Hello Frank!
I didn't say anything about "bogus analyses". I was just explaining what these measurements mean and how various factors in the geosphere effect the conc CO2 in the atmosphere. The IPCC didn't give an explanation to the reader or policy makers of what the conc of CO2 on Figure SPM-1 actually means. As a matter of fact, I doubt that these guys who wrote the SPM know that the values are for standard dry air.
I don't recall Beck doing any CO2 analysis, but I will check this out. Nowaday, you can buy hand instruments that will measure CO2 in ambient air directly and in real time.
The value of MLO CO2 measurements is that the relative change in CO2 in the atmosphere over time can be estimated quite accurately. However, it is not the conc of CO2 in real air. The actual amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of real air is less than that based on the conc of 388 ppmv.
Presumably, the climate modelers use the distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere as determined by NOAA's statellites for their most upto date calculations. Then again, maybe they don't. This probably depends on how much money they want to spend on computer time.
I have decided to exile you to Cassiar, BC where you can work for the mining company that is recovering magnesium from asbestos tailings. After a winter of sub zero temperatures in the -20 to -30 deg range, you might come to think that global warming is not so bad after all! I have read that you can make $100,000 or more per year working in the far North.
Posted by: Haeold Pierce Jr | March 23, 2008 6:54 AM
Thanks bi for fulfilling my prediction so promptly. No doubt there are more to come from those like bi whose math is challenged to breaking point by Ralph Keeling.
Posted by: Tim Curtin | March 23, 2008 7:40 AM
Harold Pierce:
The graph is bogus, period. Lambert pointed this out. I pointed this out. Stop dodging and weaving.
Guess we need to add Harold Pierce's pronunciations of "exilement" to ben's "liberal conspiracy" theory.
Tim Curtin:
Yeah, whatever. Bring up another 400 of your zombie hordes of "skeptics" made up with your own mouth. By the way, do you realize you just unwittingly made a stirring, impassioned, unreserved endorsement of the IPCC report?
I could say that several of your "statistics" are purely made up, but that'll just sow confusion -- which is what you want.
I'll just point out that the slope on Beck's bogus CO2 graph for 1920--1945 is different from the slope for 2000--2006. Yes, the slope is different. Different.
Now try to dispute that with your fancy math.
Posted by: bi | March 23, 2008 9:12 AM
Hello Frank!
The absolute amount of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere of real air is unknown because there is no network of stations that measures continously the absolute amount of CO2 per unit volume of sampled air in real time at the surface and as a function of altitude. To do this you would need thousands of stations all reporting to one computer which would compute the spatial and temporal the distribution of absolute conc of CO2 over the entire surface of the earth.
Now you show me that the above statement false.
I'll find the link to plot of CO2 in atmosphere as determined by satellite measurements.
Posted by: Harold Pierce Jr | March 23, 2008 9:45 AM
RE: #28 Hello Tim!
I would be most appreciative if you would forward my above posts to Dr. Vincent Gray, Dr. Bob Carter and your colleagues "Down Under" and have them check these comments for accuracy, especially #30.
How can any prudent government impose carbon taxes and implement the various GHG emission reduction schemes when the absolute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not known?
BTW: I have finished my study of the Quatsino temperature records and typing up the results.
Posted by: Harold Pierce Jr | March 23, 2008 10:25 AM
Harold Pierce Jnr.
Could you please post your references that definitively demonstrate that Mauna Loa concentrations of CO2 bear no relationship to CO2 concentrations at any other site in the world?
Are you saying that '[s]ince standard dry air exists at no site on the surface of the earth', the innumerable modern measurements of CO2 that give a concentration of 388ppm (or thereabouts) are incorrect (within standard measurement error, as opposed to the error that you propose) in their values? It appears that this is your claim, as you immediately go on to say 'using a value of 388 ppmv will give results that error [sic] on the high side'. This implies that you have an understanding of what the real values (I am presuming that you are referring to values of 'temperature') are that 'computer modelling experiments' should produce. Could you advise what the actual results of the 'computer modelling experiments' should be, and what your references for such are? And can you advise also of the references that indicate that modern instrumental measurement of CO2 concentrations are inaccurate? And if they are inaccurate, is this a consequence of the scientists and technicians who perform these measurements being incapable of calibrating their instruments, or of collecting their samples appropriately, or of analysing their data correctly, or a combination of theses three? References?
If you are not claiming to have definitive knowledge of what 'computer modelling experiments' results should be, are you suggesting that the overestimated concentrations of modern CO2, that you are critical of, will produce overestimates of temperature via a 'greenhouse' effect?
If so, then your claims elsewhere on Deltoid that global temperatures have not changed over the last century must be predicated on the premise that CO2 concentrations have not changes since the Industrial Revolution began. In this case how can you not find 'much to criticize' in Beck's paper, which claims major fluctuations in global CO2 concentration over 200 years?
Do these instruments have the same measurement bias that you claim are (apparently) made by climate researchers? If so, are any CO2 analyses that Beck might have performed likewise of dubious value?
Does the fact that you stated that Cassiar, BC has 'winter[s] of sub zero temperatures in the -20 to -30 deg range' imply that it is undesirable for a place near the poles of the planet to be thus cold? Is your comment that 'you might come to think that global warming is not so bad after all' a tacit acknowledgement that global warming is a valid concept? Or are you simply saying that it doesn't exist, but if it did it would be a good thing? If the latter is the case, upon what audit of global good do you base this premise? References?
And reiterating my last question to you at New CEI Ad: "Al Gore: We call him fat" , 'What magnitude of values for σ do your analyses produce? What amount of temperature change are you prepared to detect/accept that would imply climate change?'
Posted by: Bernard J. | March 23, 2008 11:47 AM
Harold darling, there are lots of stations that measure CO2, you can find a lot of them on the CDIAC site and they all are consistent with the Mauna Loa (ML) series with the local seasonal variation being due to latidudinal mixing, which takes a year or so. ML is just the longest one.
What these stations measure is the CO2 concentration in the air after it has been well mixed by winds and such. What Beck's boys measured was local concentrations at ground level. Since most of the places they measured were dominated by local point sources, that is what they measured. Of course, there were cases where they measured the composition of the breath being emitted by the person doing the sampling (at the bottom a wonderful picture of Mr. Roland Ploennige messing up a sample). The total amount of CO2 in the gas phase is what determines the greenhouse IR absorption. Given how fast the horizontal and vertical mixing is, this is well represented by the background level (remember the seas cover 2/3 of the surface)
There were a few cases where the winds were blowing unpolluted air towards the detection sites, so they did measure background levels, which, lord be praised, turned out to agree with the ice core records and join smoothly onto the ML record. Even rural sites were prone to higher measurements by air packets blown from cities as Keeling found out in La Jolla and the Sierra.
In the few cases where there were inter-comparisons between the wet methods yielding higher values and the IR absorption method, it was shown that the wet methods were seriously in error (see the link) which is why they were abandoned. While wet methods CAN be reasonably accurate and precise, they require a significant amount of skill and are, even in the best hands, not as accurate or precise as the IR absorption methods.
There is so much more, but, oh yes, Harold, the INTERNET, allows you to send messages to New Zealand from Outer Space.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | March 23, 2008 11:51 AM
And in response to all the fact-free discussion about how the IPCC will exaggerate future warming, I'll just say three words:
Rahmstoorf et al.
So the IPCC models (as published in 2001, and independent of post-1990 data) were wrong in a way, but they were wrong in the wrong direction -- it underestimated climate change.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled denialist talking point...
Posted by: bi | March 23, 2008 12:31 PM
Harold Pierce Jnr.
If some of the regulars here from around the globe, whom you so vehemently disagree with about the existence of global warming, were prepared to offer you temperature data of sites they selected, or if they were willing even to just direct you to some interesting locations (we don't need to worry about selector bias, do we?), would you be prepared to analyse them using your insightful technique?
If your 'studies' produced results that indicated significant increases in temperature at these places, would you provide us with a typed report that reflected this, and what the implications for climate change might be? And because we are clever and well trained analysts, could we agree a priori what changes you would be seeking that would indicate warming?
Posted by: Bernard J. | March 23, 2008 12:36 PM
But it really is a conspiracy theory. Well, more of a conspiracy conjecture, but that doesn't mean it's not true. Now hold on while I get my tinfoil hat out of the oven...
Posted by: ben | March 23, 2008 1:14 PM
The microwave ben, it is much more spectacular with tinfoil hats
Posted by: Eli Rabett | March 23, 2008 2:37 PM
Hi Eli,
"What Beck's boys measured was local concentrations at ground level."
OK, if I make some Pettenkoffer CO2 measurements in my backyard tomorrow (or next month, I first have to learn the method) , and then in some crowded meeting room in my neighborhood one week after (don't forget to call the local newspaper), then publish them in a peer-reviewed journal (E&E might be suitable for that respect), am I bound to become Beck great-grandson's boy in 2070 in an peer-reviewed (in E&E's standard) article showing that 113 years of precise measurements debunked the Keeling curve ?
But the task might be more difficult since the price for entering into such a shortlist could request recruiting some people to make many measurements (Beck claims 90000, of which 64000 at the same location), and convincing one or two Nobel prizes to add their names to the paper...
Best
Yves
Posted by: Yves | March 23, 2008 3:35 PM
Keeling's "refutation" cited with such glee by Rabett & Lambert "clinches" with this statement: "Beck's 11-year averages show large swings, including an increase from 310 to 420 ppm between 1920 and 1945 (Beck's Figure 11). To drive an increase of this magnitude globally requires the release of 233 billion metric tons of C to the atmosphere. The amount is equivalent to more than a third of all the carbon contained in land plants globally". ... Not bad for Dr Beck, for if he is wrong about 1920-1945, then so now are the IPCC and Canadell et al for 2000-2006, not to mention R Keeling.
what part of LARGE SWINGS don t you understand? if you can t spot the difference in the graph between the 1920-45 and the 2000-2006 period, you should have your eyes examined!
the amount of CO2 released from fossil fuels is rather easysily calculated.
But the task might be more difficult since the price for entering into such a shortlist could request recruiting some people to make many measurements (Beck claims 90000, of which 64000 at the same location), and convincing one or two Nobel prizes to add their names to the paper...
yes, and their results are FANTASTIC. they got CO2 concentration wrong by 200ppm at the worst! (and we don t really know what the real CO2 concentration was at the place they were measuring!
but it s simply slightly more accurate today...
or do you doubt that?!?
Posted by: sod | March 23, 2008 5:18 PM
Hi sod,
"yes, and their results are FANTASTIC".
One cannot expect less from the CO2 flying circus managers!
"they got CO2 concentration wrong by 200ppm at the worst! (and we don t really know what the real CO2 concentration was at the place they were measuring!"
They, IMO, are mostly Beck and ZJ when making global conclusions from local measurements from primary authors whose first purpose were not always CO2 levels, even local (see for instance Lockhart and Court 1942 available in docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/070/mwr-070-05-0093.pdf, about ... oxygen depletion in Antarctica).
"but it s simply slightly more accurate today..."
In this link www.af-info.or.jp/eng/honor/bppcl_e/e1993keeling.txt Keeling makes the history of the CO2 measurements, noticing that in the 1880s a Belgian named Jules Reiset did measurements precise enough to see the seasonal variations on the Belgian coast. But later the interest in global CO2 levels waned, the infamous Pettenkofer method, less precise but easier, became standard and the seasonal variation was no more evidenced, before the measurements by Keeling starting in 1954 in California and later at Mauna Loa.
"or do you doubt that?!?"
I don't doubt the use of quantities as arguments from authority in Beck's stories. This Schulmeister seems indeed to be an excellent storyteller.
Best
Yves
Posted by: Yves | March 23, 2008 8:07 PM
RE: #39 Hello sod! Here are the dates you requested:
The Sign of the Beast: Sept. 23, 24, and 25, 1926.
The -0.5 deg C entry: March 24, 2002.
Both max and min temp for this date are questionable.
Here is another example of a suspicious number: Data is for mean monthly min temp for June 1940-49:
9.2 9.8 8.4 7.6 8.7 8.2 9.1 9.6 8.9 4.2?
Mean=8.8 with 4.2 excluded.
I just excluded questionable values. Errors, like enemies, accumulate and screw-up the data.
GO: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/dailydata_e.html.
Enter "Quatsino" in the box for a customized search. When the Quatsino page appears, use the drop down selectors to set the month and year.
If you want to printout a record, set margins for 6.25 mm all round and use legal size paper. Do not use the "Format for Print" option.
.
Posted by: Harold Pierce Jr | March 23, 2008 8:32 PM
I see Harold continues to blithely ignore all the points made by Tim Lambert, Bernard J., Eli Rabett, and myself. "La la la la la la I'm not listening" -- that's the denialist way!
Harold, is Naomi Oreskes fat?
Posted by: bi | March 23, 2008 11:02 PM
Bi said with his innate charm: "Yeah, whatever. Bring up another 400 of your zombie hordes of "skeptics" made up with your own mouth. By the way, do you realize you just unwittingly made a stirring, impassioned, unreserved endorsement of the IPCC report? I could say that several of your "statistics" are purely made up, but that'll just sow confusion -- which is what you want".
Which statistics? Ralph Keeling's or those of the IPCC + Canadell et al? BTW I agree about the latter, some of the data I cited from IPCC+ Canadell was indeed made up by them, as that on land use change emissions is contradicted by earlier studies of two of their co-authors (Ciais and R Houghton). Their strictly fraudulent adjustment of the luc data of Ciais & Houghton is the basis of their false claim that the oceanic and terrestrial sinks of CO2 are already "saturated". They recruited the named persons as two of many "co-authors" (of a 5 page paper) to ensure that they were not available for either (a) peer review, or (b) rebuttals on the basis of their own work. The Canadell et al PNAS paper (Oct 2007) was funded by the Howard Australian government but was the basis of a tendentious press release during the election campaign aimed at staking their claim to a bigger flow of largesse from Rudd. People like Canadell and Ciais are shameless. How much did the latter get from the AGO for agreeing to the suppression of all mention of his 2004 paper?
bi added: "I'll just point out that the slope on Beck's bogus CO2 graph for 1920--1945 is different from the slope for 2000--2006. Yes, the slope is different. Different.Now try to dispute that with your fancy math." Flattery will get you everywhere, but all I used was Keeling's arithmetic, which yielded the same ratio between emissions and CO2 concentration for 1920-1945 in Beck as for 2000-2006 in IPCC & co. Slopes are irrelevant, and are not mentioned by bi's lover boy Keeling. Given the primitive measurements that Beck reported were all that were available before Chas Keeling gave us the one spot stats that Harold Pierce has shown abstract from the more nuanced ones reported by Beck, Beck did amazingly well to be vindicated by the IPCC.
Posted by: Tim Curtin | March 24, 2008 4:26 AM
Tim Curtin:
Go fantasize all you want about Beck and Monckton and Singer and the whole gang being "unwittingly" "vindicated" by the scientific community. It won't make an ounce of difference to the facts.
Why don't you tell me? You can't be bothered to look your facts before casting aspersions left and right?
Then your arithmetic is borked. Anyone with an eye and a brain can see that the slope -- which is precisely the rate of increase in CO2 -- as shown on Beck's bogus graph is vastly steeper for 1920--1945 than it is for 2000--2006 on the same graph. The slope is different.
Talk about hurling "personal abuse"...
Quick, call me more names. Call me fat. Is Naomi Oreskes fat too?
Posted by: bi | March 24, 2008 4:44 AM
bi: 1. Slopes are different from ratios. 2. Climate scientists like Canadell et al are even more available for hire than those stingily paid off by BP etc. 3. In all likelihood both you and Naomi are very fat, and as that is your sole contribution to this debate let's leave it at that.
Posted by: Tim Curtin | March 24, 2008 6:50 AM
Harold Pierce Jnr.
At #66 on New CEI Ad: "Al Gore: We call him fat" you stated:
And at #41 above you said:
Surely, surely, surely you did not mean what you said about three consecutive '-0.6' values? I cannot imagine that you did, but for your comment about the data quality checker, and the fact that you repeated the reference to the Sign of the Beast in the second of these two quotes, with dates included. Even if you are only joking, you are severely eroding any (tenuous) credibility you may have ever had.
And I checked your reference to the Quatsino BC -0.5 vs -5.0 'error'. Using your links I see that the mean maximum temperature for March 02 at Quatsino was 7.0ºC, the mean of the daily means was 4.0ºC, and the mean minimum was 1.1ºC. Since your gripe was with a value of -0.5ºC that you think should have been -5.0ºC, I will consider only the minimum daily temperature values (to give you the best advantage possible)...
There is only one value of -0.5ºC, and it occurs on 19 March, not 24 March as you stated. However, I see that there are 22 values greater or equal to -0.5ºC for the month, and 9 values less than -0.5ºC. Given this, and the fact that the mean of the daily minimums is 1.1ºC, with a standard deviation of 3.0ºC, and that the extreme lowest value is -5.5ºC, I can only say that your premise that -0.5ºC "should be" -5.0ºC is so far off the mark that it is out of the galaxy.
And I see no problem with the maximum and minimum values for 24 March 02, other than (at a stretch) that the maximum (13.5ºC) is the maximum for the month. This is especially a stretch given that there were four occurrences of 8.5ºC; one each of 9.0ºC, 9.5ºC, 10.0ºC, 11.0ºC and 12.0ºC; and two of 10.5ºC. If you continue to see a problem here, perhaps you would offer your considered opinion for the following series of temperatures for an arbitrary site during March this year. I will avoid your predilection of 'selecting' an arbitrary historic comparison, and instead offer you the anomaly values with which to work, which is somewhat more appropriate. Frustratingly my efforts at html tags are unsuccessful in tabulating these data.
Date min anomaly max anomaly
01/03/08 13.5 -1.6 25.7 -0.5
02/03/08 13.3 -1.8 31.1 4.9
03/03/08 15.6 0.5 35.4 9.2
04/03/08 23.5 8.4 35.7 9.5
05/03/08 24.4 9.3 37.9 11.7
06/03/08 19.6 4.5 38.5 12.3
07/03/08 19.9 4.8 39.0 12.8
08/03/08 21.1 6.0 39.8 13.6
09/03/08 25.4 10.3 40.2 14.0
10/03/08 22.4 7.3 40.0 13.8
11/03/08 22.0 6.9 38.4 12.2
12/03/08 22.4 7.3 39.2 13.0
13/03/08 25.0 9.9 39.7 13.5
14/03/08 30.2 15.1 38.6 12.4
15/03/08 23.6 8.5 38.3 12.1
16/03/08 22.5 7.4 39.9 13.7
17/03/08 25.9 10.8 40.5 14.3
18/03/08 21.8 6.7 27.6 1.4
19/03/08 15.0 -0.1 27.0 0.8
20/03/08 13.3 -1.8 23.0 -3.2
21/03/08 11.8 -3.3 22.2 -4.0
22/03/08 13.2 -1.9 22.7 -3.5
23/03/08 10.9 -4.2 29.0 3.0
What are your criteria for 'questionable values'. You need to be scrupulous in your a priori definition of such - you cannot just decide on this as you roll along. And I indicated to you in an earlier post that large datasets are usually robustly impervious to the 'errors' that you seem to be so irrationally fixated with. One cannot just blithely remove data because you 'don't like the look' of them, and leaving them intact rarely makes too much of a difference. If they do, then one is probably considering a small dataset, and the likelihood of raw data errors being undetected is low in this event.
Last weekend I attended a community forum on climate change, and one of the principle speakers was the state government officer responsible for policy development and application on climate change. He is an economist by training and by decades of working, and he commenced his talk by acknowledging his employment for many years as a hired gun by big industry to discredit the existence of global warming - he grew rich on this. He also acknowledged that even he and his benefactors privately admitted in the past to the reality of climate change, and that they are no less certain of it today. He gave up a lucrative career to turn to the 'light' because he understood the gravity of the situation, and his most telling comment was that deniers are a minor and an almost irrelevant voice in global policy today - even the most conservative ideologues (outside of the fossil fuel industry) have figured out on which side their bread is buttered.
The only issue these days is that the Deniers, in which camp I firmly place you, obfuscate the understanding of the 'general public' with respect to the urgency of the climate change problem. If you have a valid counter to the >>97% of expert understanding that says that climate change is the major problem that the world faces today, them you will be given genuine consideration - as long as you speak sensibly and with informed understanding. You demonstrate none of this whatsoever, and the only effect that you and those of your bent have is to create a minor delay in changes that will inevitably come. Nevertheless, even such (relatively minor) delaying tactics can still have profound consequences for the planet, and given the gravity of the threat, and the essentially minor adjustments that would avoid the worst of it, it is sheer bloody-mindedness on your part to keep your head in the sands of ignorance, as you do.
Several months ago I offered this piece of advice to another denier. It is something I myself live by, and I suggest that you would benefit from serious consideration of it:
Posted by: Bernard J. | March 24, 2008 7:06 AM
Harold Pierce writes:
[[The absolute amount of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere of real air is unknown ]]
No, it's known pretty closely. I'll do the calculation for you.
The present concentration of carbon dioxide in ambient air is about 385 ppmv. The total mass of the atmosphere is about 5.136 x 10^18 kg. CO2 has a molecular weight of 44.0096 while moist air averages 28.92. There are therefore 0.000385 x 5.136e18 x (44.0096/28.92) = 3.01 x 10^15 kilograms of carbon dioxide in the air, on average.
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | March 24, 2008 7:26 AM
RE: #33 Hello Eli!
Go read #21, the first paragraph. For most all remote sites, the ratios of atmospheric gases is relatively constant and is independent of elevation. As I mentioned the ref state for reporting composition of the atmosphere based upon analysis of ambient air is "Standard Dry Air".
The elevation of Mauna Loa is 11,200 ft and air pressure is about 9.5 psi or 0.65 atm. At STP the density of dry air ia 1.29 kg/cu. meter. The amount of CO2 therein is 388 ml. At 11,200 ft the density of dry air at 0 deg C would be about 0.8 kg/ cu. meter and the absolute amount of CO2 would be about 250 ml but the relative concentraion would still be 388 ppmv.
This is important: you can not use the value of 388 ppmv for computing the absolute amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The mean global temperature is about 288 K. The ideal gas law is: PV=nRT and rearranged is n/V=P/TR, where n is the mole number and R is the gas constant. For a mixture n is the sum of the mole numbers for the indivdual components.
If we assume a constant world pressure of 1 atm and V is constant, then the absolute amount CO2 in dry air would be about 368 ml /cu meter. In real air with water vapor this value will be less depending on the humidity.
GO: http://www.uigi.com/air.html for interesting info about air.
Any questions?
Posted by: Harold Pierce Jr | March 24, 2008 7:50 AM
BBL: well done! But your 820 GtC are growing very slowly, at around 0.5% p.a., while anthropogenic emissions are growing at over 3% p.a. How so?
Posted by: Tim Curtin | March 24, 2008 7:52 AM