CO2: just in case you thought some thiings are too mad to consider : Stoat

Profile

My family and me. More...

Make sure you're familiar with the Comment Policy

Search

Other Information

Co-moderator of globalchange mailing list

Subscribe to globalchange

Email:

Browse at groups.google.com

I've been using Google Reader recently, following the lamented death of Planet Fleck, and I suppose I have to admit its better. Here are some "shared items" if, for some reason, you want to read what I read.

« 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

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.

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

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