One of the things that just about no-one bothers contest is that CO2 is rising from anthropogenic contributions. There are good reasons for this; CO2 is well measured since Mauna Loa; it tracks (scaled by 50% for absoption) the known human sources... and so on. However, its a wide net out there and some people will challenge anything, so we have High CO2 in the 1940's atmosphere, contrary to IPCC science. Tim Lambert and Jim Easter took this apart before; as far as can be told, the recent post (see fig 1 of the Beck thingy) is just the same mistakes all over again.
Stoat
Taking science by the throat... climate, rowing, and misc.
Profile
My family and me.
More...
Make sure you're familiar with the Comment Policy
Confused by my constant use of abbreviations? Then you need the Glossary
Search
Recent Posts
- Grauniad hangwringing
- A testable prediction by a nutter
- Cold in Cambridge
- Chris Huhne
- Justice and Injustice
- Black to play
- RFS 9: Kill Hollywood
- Plan 8 from outer space
- I feel dirty
- Fossil fuels are sub-prime assets, Bank of England governor warned?
Recent Comments
- Doug Cotton on Grauniad hangwringing
- Steve Bloom on A testable prediction by a nutter
- Lazar on Grauniad hangwringing
- Lazar on Grauniad hangwringing
- Lazar on Grauniad hangwringing
- Eli Rabett on A testable prediction by a nutter
- Steve Bloom on A testable prediction by a nutter
- bratisla on A testable prediction by a nutter
- bratisla on A testable prediction by a nutter
- Russell on A testable prediction by a nutter
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
Blogroll
- My personal blog
- Back Seat Driving
- Bryan's Blog
- CIP
- QS/DA
- Deltoid
- Eli t Rabett
- Jeb
- John Fleck
- Only In It For The Gold
- Real Climate
- RP Sr
- RP Jr
- Sagredo
- Some are Boojums
- My view on climate change (Bart)
- Science of Doom
- Timmy
Other Information
| Co-moderator of globalchange mailing list | Subscribe to globalchange |
| Browse at groups.google.com | |
« S+C 6.0 provisional | Main | A challenge to JA »
CO2: just in case you thought some thiings are too mad to consider
Category: septic tripe
Posted on: October 3, 2006 7:33 AM, by William M. Connolley
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/22605
Comments
It is pretty remarkable that this argument still comes up so much. My take is here:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/co2-rise-is-natural.html
Posted by: coby | October 3, 2006 2:38 PM
The mistake here is a different one. Basically Beck didn't RTFR or he could not find it. If you are going to measure CO2 mixing ratios, Europe is not a good place to start and that was pretty clear after 1960, when Keeling blew the Swedes away.
Sorry for the double post, but the link was foul
Posted by: Eli Rabett | October 4, 2006 12:32 AM
Unbelievable. It amazes me that these people still have careers outside of political lobbying. They are either an incompetent scientist or an incompetent liar. Any way you cut it they are incompetent.
Posted by: Wacki | October 4, 2006 11:50 AM
Thanks for the link, William. Please permit me to link also to the sub-post dealing specifically with Fonselius' summary of historical CO2 measurement, and Jaworowski's breathtakingly wacky misinterpretation of it. It is basically the same argument advanced by Warwick Hughes (who even cite Jaworowski): data are data, and any exclusion of outliers is an indication of bias. Why and how CO2 rose and fell by 100 ppmv in a single year, then settled down as soon as we changed measurement methods, is left as an exercise for the student.
Posted by: jre | October 4, 2006 1:23 PM
Re notorious outliers, a cartoon:
http://www.nearingzero.net/screen_res/nz021.jpg
Posted by: hank | October 4, 2006 5:02 PM