I have always like this graphic from Global Warming Art:
It puts the current CO2 rise into sharp perspective in terms of historical flucuations, both in its magnitude and rapidity.
Well, even better for impact is the video below from Youtube user CarbonTracker:
Especially intriguing is watching the seasonal rise and fall, the collective breathing of earth's plant life.
That video frightens me; it makes it obvious how much we are outpacing the planet's ability to absorb CO2.
In the not so distant past, some of the world's experts on climate change mke known their plans ...
âWeâve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.â - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
âNo matter if the science of global warming is all phonyâ¦ climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.â - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment
âThe only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.â - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
âIsnât the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isnât it our responsiblity to bring that about?â - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
âIf I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.â - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund
âI suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.â - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
âThe extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.â - Christopher Manes, Earth First!
âChildbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.â - David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club
These are some quotes from a few of the evil environazis who thrive to ruin our lives. They are evil and they should be put in prison fro their fraud and murder.
Quote-mining is an old, old technique - to cherry-pick, mangle or invent quotes, repeat them out of context, and claim it means something. A more accurate description is "lying". Creationists use it a lot. So do climate zombies.
I note you do not bother to give links for your cited comments. That says it all.
Yes, I would like to see some substantiation and context for these as well. But even if they are all true, and utterly evil, as Bob says, none of the people quoted are in fact "experts on climate change".
Plus, we would really need a similar quote from Tyndal, evil genius master mind who started the 150 year New World Order plan in the beginning...
Bob is a zombie.
You get this either as a link or a cut and paste from mindless deniers from time to time.
No surprise there, really. Intresting item in that list of otherwise good conspiracy theorist food was the following:
"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable." - Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit
Which seems to be a pretty darn non-controversial and non-judgemental statement of fact. Bob may not like to hear that, but it is hardly an evil threat.
To know that Bob would have to actually read his source.
Maurice Strong is a very dangerous marxist. I bet he doesn't chnage HIS lifestyle does he? Just like AL Gore. He only wants to change ours. Good thing I stockpiled thousands of light bulbs before the econazis banned them. Now I can sell them on the black market and make alot of money. I love capitalism. Even if I don't, I still have real lights bulbs. The neaighbors will be envious.
Also, fossil fuels? You're kidding right? I though we had the old argument of "fossil" fules dead in the water 65 years ago. Oil is a natural made substance. It is made within the earth. we are NOT going to run out. It's impossible to run out.
I'll use my lights bulbs, air conditioning, and whatever else I so choose. Maurice Strong can kiss my hairy butt.
Coby thats an interesting CO2 graph you have. Can you tell me where all the data comes from? As far as i can tell that graph is made up of two data sets.
The value of 285ppm from 1750 is from a different data set than the values from the 1950's onwards. If you are prepared to use one value from a data (1750 value) why dont you show ALL the values from that data set? Is it because this earlier data set shows CO2 values peaking above 400ppm?
Oil . . . is made within the earth. we are NOT going to run out. It's impossible to run out.
That ought to close the door on this clown's credibility.
Dont be so quick to slam that door Skip, Russian scientists/geologists/petrochemical engineers (call them what you will) believe oil is formed deep in the Earth and is released through fissures in the Earths crust.
Now i am not sure of how accurate they are but it does beg the question, if oil comes from dead dinosaurs then why do we have to drill many kilometers into the ground to get the stuff?
Sometimes crakar, I don't know whether you are trying to be funny and are posting Poe, or if you are being serious.
I guess this time it must be Poe, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt and laugh at your attempt at humour.
Dead dinosaurs! Hilarious!
Deep underground! Priceless!
Mandas i have gone out of my way to be nice to you in an attempt to raise the standard on conversation here but it appears this ability is beyond you.
I have just done a quick google search and one of the deepest wells drilled i could find in 60 seconds of searching is over 5.5 kilometers deep (thats 7 miles for our American friends) now i dont now how fossilised remains could be at the depth to turn into oil but maybe you can explain how this is possible.
I am noty sayng it is not possible but would like YOU to explain it.
I am not being nasty to you. Just laughing at your Poe.
But if you are being serious - then I am really concerned with your lack of science knowledge.
Firstly - oil does NOT come from dead dinosaurs. Although it is POSSIBLE that some large animals are included in the fossils, oil 'comes from' the remains of dead marine algae and small marine creatures which fell to the floor of the ocean eons ago and were buried under sediment.
And that answers your second question as well. But of course, thats all on the internet, and since you are sitting in front of a computer I have to assume you are perfectly capable of doing a few seconds research to find these things out. Hence my initial reaction to your previous post.
And by the way, your maths hasn't improved. 5.5 kms is NOT 7 miles, it is about 3.5 miles.
Yes my mistake, the deepest oil well ever drilled is 7 miles which of course is 11.2 kilometers deep (got the conversion wrong).
So what you are saying is that dead things died and have then been buried under up to 11.2 kilometers of dirt (or for all we know even more dirt) and under the right conditions turned into oil. That is possible of course and i am not doubting you for a second.
What i am asking is do you think it is possible that oil could form deep in the Earth aswell or do you think this is entirely impossible?
By the way it appears that it is bed time in the land of Coby so do you have an opinion on my post 9?
Its not me that's saying those things - its geologists. And as they are experts and I am not, I have no reason to doubt them. Especially as their ideas are consistent with other branches of science. And the abiogenic theory of oil formation is pretty much dismissed by any geologist with any degree of credibility.
But no-one is saying things were buried under 11 km of dirt. They got buried under sediment, yes. But plate tectonics and subduction played a big part in burying them deeper as well.
As regard #9, I don't know what you are saying. What data set are you referring to? Could you provide a link or source please.
Frankly I don;t really care if you believe me or not. I was just stating a fact. I guess that's what I get for trying to discuss reality with people who think we evolved from apelike creatures. Behind global warming, evolution is the greatest of human lies.
I am sure some oil is made from "fossils" of dead things that died in the flood about 4500 years ago, but for the most part oil has been here as long as we have - since creation. It is a natural made product in the earth. "scientists" are silly to think otherwise. I guess fear of running out is what's keeping the cost up. Politics suck.
See you're hiding out here now. I left a post #673 for you over at that interminable RW thread. I suggest that if you want to preserve your integrity as such a goody-two-shoes scientist you shoo along and proffer that Aus data that was to be such a takedown for RW; otherwise, as that other interminable bore, Skip, is so fond of doing, I will constantly remind you of it forever more, seeing as presently it seems like your claim to disprove him was nothing but b.s. Otherwise known as *a lie*. You, know, the thing you self-preening types here are so ready to accuse others of?
All you marvellous scientists here are so full of your own importance and so cock-sure of your superior intelligence, yet not one of you has the ability to refute some delusional guy with minor skills in Excel? Incredible! It's been so funny to watch!!
Thanks for that information Bob. There is a good source of some information to help you out here:
Oh hi Mlax
Thanks for leaving that post for me, but as you probably read from my last post there, I was bored with the whole thing so I am not even looking at that thread anymore.
I am a bit confused though. Didn't Dick explain that he had both a friend in Australia and the URL for the BOM data? So I guess he doesn't need me to provide it. But goodonya for trying to help him out there.
And with regard to this quote from your post:
"....All you marvellous scientists here are so full of your own importance and so cock-sure of your superior intelligence..."
Well, superior to you anyway.
"....yet not one of you has the ability to refute some delusional guy with minor skills in Excel?...."
At least you agree with everyone that he is delusional and has only minor skills. So maybe you aren't so stupid after all. Well done!
Let me rephrase the question.
We know Keeling snr and now his son have been measuring CO2 levels since the mid 1950's and lets assume these measurements are accurate.
The graph above dates back to 1000 AD so my question is what method of measurement was used prior to the mid 1950's?
I (and I guess you as well) know that there were a number of different sources for CO2 measurements prior to the 1950s.
But if you want a direct answer to your question, I suggest you click on the link provided with the graph. It takes you to a page with a number of other graphs, and if you then click on the graphs, you get taken to other pages with more information and details on sources and papers etc. You can read the papers and check the source data and your questions will be answered by the authors and the people who produced the graphs.
Thatâs strange . . . you were able to follow that thread over the course of several weeks, and for more than 1100 posts, but just as the crucial point came where RW called your bluff on the Aus data you . . . became bored. How convenient. Nothing to do with the fact that you were talking through your arse the whole time, I suppose? Not that talking through your arse takes you much effort, it seems. Youâre quite the self-proclaimed expert on everything, arenât you, except when it comes to the crunch on matters of fact.
Mandas #424 on RW thread: âIf I do, will you promise to publicly admit you are wrong, do so on your own website, then shut the fuck up and go away never to return?â
Mandas #477 on RW thread: âHow about you crawl back under the rock from whence you came Dick. Liars and disengenuous (sic) arseholes aren't welcomeâ.
So then, mighty Mandas, any chance you take some of your own advice? Maybe publicly admit that you were wrong, that you were simply trying to bully someone into submission by falsely claiming to have performed an analysis that you never had? Maybe by crawling back under your own rock, handing in your Honest Scientist badge, and maybe (oh, please) do some of that shut-the-fuck-up-and-go-away-never-to-return stuff?
Donât worry yourself about whether Iâm stupid or not. Iâm thinking youâre the one who needs to worry about looking stupid.
P.S. How much are you willing to bet that your Witchsmeller mate IF wonât call you out on your lie about the Aus data? Iâll be asking him to, but Iâm not liking the odds.
You have made a rather bold assumption there - that Dick is right and I am wrong about the Australian climate date.
One small problem though - your assumption is flawed.
But that's ok - its probably consistent with other parts of your worldview as well.
Mandas are you talking about Lou Grinzo and MT? I cant look at those sites here because "Big Brother" wont let me, i could look at them at home but just to fill in the time i thought i would let you enlighten me on your thoughts.
I will give you a little nudge in the direction i am heading, i have seen measurements from years prior to the mid 1950's and they differ from what is shown on Coby's graph so obviously they would not appear on the to sites mentioned above.
And that goes back to my earlier question about datasets.
If you have something that is different to what coby has linked to, could you please provide it.
Interminable bore, Mlax?
Should I kill myself now in despondency or keep responding to Richard? I would say the subject matter and the quality of the disputant's arguments inherently constrain the entertainment quality of my posts.
I will give you a little nudge in the direction i am heading, i have seen measurements from years prior to the mid 1950's and they differ from what is shown on Coby's graph so obviously they would not appear on the to sites mentioned above.
You wouldn't be talking about Beck's graph would you? If you are I'd forget about it since it does not say what it purports too say.
I am referring to E.G. Beck not Coby.
"You have made a rather bold assumption there - that Dick is right and I am wrong about the Australian climate date.
One small problem though - your assumption is flawed".
Hmm, to use an over-used retort on this blog: Strawman. If RW said the grass was green Iâd immediately start fact-checking. This isnât about RW, or his dumbass âthesisâ; itâs about the way you talked big about having available the irrefutable evidence to show RW is wrong, when all you were doing was bullshiting and trying to bully him into going away (all the better to monopolize the blog comments again, as before RW showed up). I know this may come as a profound shock to you, but - wait for it - you are not the only person with an advanced degree who can understand basic science. Hence, it is actually quite easy for me to deduce all by myself the many holes in RW's âthesisâ and the limitations of his silly Excel games. The only difference being that I have not painted myself into a corner as you have. So, if you have done the analysis of the available Aus data, sufficient to take down RW, THEN POST IT and post it now so we know you were not telling a lie initially. But if you were only pretending to have done the analysis, then admit to your lie. For someone who is so big on honesty, your ongoing refusal to admit to your failed bluff reeks of hypocrisy and flawed principles. That you have allowed RW to claim a notional victory on the other thread will be to your permanent shame and will haunt you for the entirety of your presence on this blog. Your credibility, such as it was, is finished unless you can big-up NOW with the analysis you were poised to pounce with . . . still waiting . . . still waiting . . .
Also, it is always telling of your type that as soon as your ego gets challenged, the challenger gets slandered as a person of dubious âworldviewâ. I know it must be galling that you are held over the flames on this issue by someone who is on âyour sideâ, so to speak, but thatâs the way the cookie crumbles in this case. Sorry to have to stick this pin in your over-inflated ego, but I am having fun watching a pompous prick like yourself being forced to squirm.
Thats it Skip stop posting as MIax right now.
I am not talking about Becks graph per se but i would be interested in hearing why it does not say what it pruports to say.
I suspect that Becks graph (Coby) is simply the ice core data stitched onto the Keeling data which is OK i suppose but Zbigniew Jaworowski has shown there is a problem with ice age and gas age measurements so the ice core data may not be as accurate as we first thought, add to this the smoothing that comes from low resolution and it is easy to see how the ice core data is not the best way to accurately measure recent CO2 levels.
Beck (Ernst)does summuries many other datasets by scientists around the world and many of these data sets show CO2 to be higher prior to the 1950's than Coby's graph above depicts.
How can we be sure the graph above is our most accurate depiction of CO2 levels in the recent past?
E.G. Beck's graph is not representative of global average. He cherry picked samples down wind from heavy industrialized cities. He took sample in the middle of forests. There are local variations on CO2 over short time scales and short areal coverage.
"....Sorry to have to stick this pin in your over-inflated ego, but I am having fun watching a pompous prick like yourself being forced to squirm....."
Its okay - no need to apologise. In fact, I am not even shifting uncomfortably in my chair, let alone squirming.
"....itâs about the way you talked big about having available the irrefutable evidence to show RW is wrong, when all you were doing was bullshiting and trying to bully him into going away...."
Once again, your assumption is flawed. On what basis do you conclude that?
"....So, if you have done the analysis of the available Aus data, sufficient to take down RW, THEN POST IT and post it now so we know you were not telling a lie initially...."
If you were following the thread as well as you claim, you will realise by now that NOTHING will convince Dick that he is wrong. And even if he is shown absolutely incontrovertible evidence, he will claim it is a lie, or ignore it, or suggest the scientist is a socialist, etc, etc.
You will have also noted that many many people provided evidence and criticism and commentary on Dick's analysis. You were not among them - why is that? Could it be that you are just bullshitting when you state that you can poke holes in his silly games?
Of those who did provide comment, every single one of them found flaws, and not once did Dick admit his error. And here's the rub - I got sick of it. You cannot convince someone who refuses to accept evidence. I made a considered decision to call Dick's bluff about his 'friend in Australia' and the 'emails he was sending to him'. And I wanted to demonstrate to everyone how Dick was completely incapable of admitting an error - or even stating that he WOULD admit an error if one could be shown. And I was right. You can accept that or not - I don't care. You have demonstrated very convincingly that your opinion isn't worth a hell of a lot.
If you want access to the Australian data, go to the BOM website and copy it. Here's a link, help yourself:
Do as much analysis as you like. Then come back and apologise for your rant - which was based on a complete lack of evidence and a complete misreading of the issue. If anyone is handing Dick a 'notional victory', it is you.
Oh - and I HAVE done the analysis of a small number of met stations from Australia. I will admit my sample size was small and unrepresentative of the rest of the world - it was essentially just from my region. But that wasn't the point of my analysis, which was to see if Dick's observations about Canada and whether it could be extrapolated to the rest of the world.
There wasn't any point doing more, because all the ones I analysed showed exactly the same thing. Increasing summer Tmax and increasing number of hot days (over 35C).
When you have finished ranting and do some analysis of the datasets I linked to, maybe you will discover that as well. Then you can come back and do what you demanded of me. Admit your error and apologise.
Perhaps you may be able to regain a modicum of credibility in the process.
Mandas, Mandas, poor deluded Mandas.
âIn fact, I am not even shifting uncomfortably in my chair, let alone squirmingâ.
Now why does that not surprise me? If you had any integrity you would be squirming, but youâre so full of your own self-importance that nothing will get through to you. In this way, you are a lot like RW. I can see why you two have become so attracted to each other on the other thread. RW will never admit his errors for the same reason you never will admit to your lie. You are both pompous, self-absorbed assholes who love the sound of their own voice, and as long as they have the stage thatâs all that matters. And you are both so chock-full of your own shit that you are impervious to all fact or reason.
I don't need the BOM data, you idiot. I already know what the state of play is in Aus and how the data accords with the thousands of other credible, peer-reviewed articles that underpin climate change science. I don't require a non-entity like you giving me sanctimonious advice, cheers anyway âmateâ. As I said before, it is possible that other people here can also understand basic science, even if we donât feel the need to be polluting the internet with our âinsightsâ day-in, day-out. You couldnât make it a belated New Yearâs resolution to stop posting for a while, could you? Say, oh I donât know, forever? And maybe Skip could join you. God, wouldnât that be wonderful. There might be something interesting to read on Cobyâs blog occasionally then, instead of having to always suffer the interminable ramblings of a couple of preening faux-intellectuals.
Also as mentioned before, and for the record, my argument with you is actually nothing to do with RW and his politically-motivated anti-AGW drivel. Stop trying to deflect attention from your own shortcomings. It's about *you* legitimizing this idiot RW by putting up a challenge and then failing to deliver; by telling a *lie* that you were going to take him down by showing him he was wrong, when all you had was posturing and bluff. All you had up your sleeve was the BOM web address? Wow!!! What a complete tool you are. And when RW called your bluff and got the data himself, and did his usual Excel games with it, you had - what was it again? - oh yeah, exactly *nothing* to come back with, thereby handing him a notional victory. Way to set yourself up for failure there, Mandas me old clown. You canât post your analysis of the BOM data because you lied â you never had said analysis. You are a liar and you know it. In your own way, youâre just as bad as RW. Your lie was caused by your arrogance and your unshakable, deluded conviction of your own self-importance. You will never even acknowledge that you lied, let alone apologize for it, because to do so would be to expose the hypocrisy of all your previous self-righteous ramblings.
Maybe if you were like most the rest of us, and spent more time listening and less time posting, trying to make yourself look clever, you wouldn't keep feeding trolls like RW and allowing them to feel victorious because ultimately you know as much about climate science as my cat does.
"Oh - and I HAVE done the analysis of a small number of met stations from Australia"
Yes, I bet you are furiously working away now trying to get it done so you can make it look like you had it all along. I'm sure you can bullshit your way through and save face with your mates here on this blog, Mandas, but you're not fooling me.
"Oh, I didn't lie when I said I had a convincing analysis available. Wait! Wait! Look, I'm nearly done, see? It wasn't a lie after all . . ."
Truly pathetic, Mandas. Truly, truly pathetic.
When I want to read science, I go to journals. I don't rely on "analysis" from amateur clowns on the internet, whether they go by the name of Mandas or Richard Wakefield. Your arrogance to think that I would take the word of you - a rank amateur - on anything of substance is, again, simply breathtaking.
the interminable ramblings of a couple of preening faux-intellectuals.
LOL. I technically only qualify as the lapdog of a faux-intellectual. (Apologies, Crakar.)
But in fairness, Mandas. Mlax is right. Post the results or admit you were bluffing.
I thought Mandas was saying he would post the links/analysis only if RW agreed to revise his statements in the light of new data.
I understand what you are saying but from what i have read Keeling did the same thing so the question remains i suppose, how accurate are our CO2 measurements pre 1950's?
I think there are at least 19? data sets from all over the world most show CO2 above 300 ppm some even as high as 400 ppm for periods of time. By the same token they also show levels in the mid to high 200's. So why have we ignored all of these data sets and gone with the ice core data?
That has to be the most informative time-lapse on any topic I've ever seen.
E.G. Beck's graph is not representative of global average. He cherry picked samples down wind from heavy industrialized cities.
Are you sure? The last portion of his graph is very similar to Mauna Loa observations (almost-linear rise from ~320ppm in 1960 to ~380ppm today).
I think there are at least 19? data sets from all over the world most show CO2 above 300 ppm some even as high as 400 ppm for periods of time.
But when? Notice that Beck's graph only goes back to 400Ky BP.
I don't know what graph you are thinking about, but Beck's graph started in 1812, and ended in 1961.
And a funny story for those "in the know": Arthur RÃ¶rsch once told me that Ernst-Georg Beck's paper in Energy & Environment was the most rigorously reviewed paper in that journal. Even someone with a minor understanding of the atmosphere and general biology could already see the flaws, errors, and overinterpretation. What does that tell us about the review process of the other papers in that journal?
So Becks data is crap because the journal is of a low standard? Remember Beck did not take the measurements he simply analysed many other datasets.
So why is this data not used in preference to ice core data which is known to be dodgy?
Not going to be around for a couple of days. My wife's family is from Toowoomba and Brisbane, and yesterday I had to take the day off work and arrange to evacuate her mother and grandmother down to Adelaide for a while.
Everyone is okay, but the house was extensively damaged and the place where my mother-in-law works was essentially destroyed. So I spent yesterday getting them on a flight and then settling them in here.
But don't worry - I will be back next week (fingers crossed). And if some of the ad hominem comments are anything to go by, all I have to do to piss Mlax off is to make lots and lots of posts. I now have another mission in life.
Sorry to hear about your in laws Mandas i hope all goes well for you, if your Mother in law starts to get on your nerves i have a camper trailer you can borrow i can drop it round your place whenever you like (thats a joke) but seriously you can borrow it if you need the room.
Also its a shame you wont be here for a while as Snowman and myself are attempting to stage a coup by hyjacking "the other thread" an alternative voice would make it a foregone conclusion.
How about picking a much longer time frame than the less than 1% of earth history:
such as 4 times 55myo http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5795/1928.abstract
Life flourished, no winters, tropics *not* hotter than today,
Burning FF is returning CO2 to the levels it should be if not for life sequestering it to bare minimum level for plants to survive.
So Becks data is crap because the journal is of a low standard?
No, Beck's data is crap and he could only get it published in the journal with the lowest standards I have ever come across.
Sorry Ian i am still a bit confused, are you saying
a, Becks data is crap
b, The Journal is crap so therefore Becks data must also be crap or
c, Becks data is crap and coincidentally the Journal is also crap
One more question if you dont mind, why is Becks and all the other data compiled before 1958 crap and why is the ice core data any better (well thats two question i know).
crakar, read this publication by Keeling, it describes some of the problems with early measurements.
Many people cannot grasp that CO2 concentrations are very variable over short periods of time. About 20 years ago I was doing some work for a client. For reasons I wont go into he wanted my analytical equipment in his lab rather than take samples and transport them to my lab. Anyway every morning I would calibrate the instrument (a GC) with an air sample since I was mostly interested in the oxygen nitrogen split and wanted to run the GC at the highest temp that would still give me the best split (so i could run more samples in a given time if residence time was shorter). Anyway, he came in one morning and told me that my GC was a piece of crap since it would not give reproducible numbers for CO2 (we were going to be mesuring CO2 but in percent amounts so I wasn't worried by 300 ppm variation in my air standard.
I told him that CO2 varied since there were trees at the back of the building and the front of the building was right on one of the main roads into the city. I explained that that would account for the increase in CO2 we observed first thing in the mornings. I could never convince him of that and he still blamed the equipment.
Re: "the other beck"
Please see: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2011/01/the_other_beck.php (after 7AM EST)
"How about picking a much longer time frame than the less than 1% of earth history:"
How about picking a time about the same period as humans have existed?
It doesn't really matter that the earth was molten rock with sulphuric acid raining down for a few score millennia, when it comes to how the climate responds to CO2, does it?
"55myo Life flourished, no winters, tropics *not* hotter than today,"
But the sun was cooler.
So why wasn't it a frozen ball of ice?
Higher CO2 concentrations keeping the heat in.