|
Post by matt on Nov 24, 2009 0:03:27 GMT
Accurate Chemical assays from the 1800's show CO2 levels of over 400ppm! <snip> CO2 was much higher in the early stages of the Industrial revolution. Kiwi, you've made some amazing claims! Where did the CO2 go? Tell me more of this story.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 24, 2009 0:18:54 GMT
Accurate Chemical assays from the 1800's show CO2 levels of over 400ppm! <snip> CO2 was much higher in the early stages of the Industrial revolution. Kiwi, you've made some amazing claims! Where did the CO2 go? Tell me more of this story. Matt: This has little to do with plants and co2, however I can't resist. Have you done no reading at all dealing with how the co2 level was achieved 100 years or more ago? The figure was arbitrarily plucked......I kid you not. IN fact...using present day stats, the co2 level at the beginning of the industrial period was prob in excess of 360ppm. The high reading were in excess of 540ppm, the low readings if memory serves me were in the mid 200's. Most of the readings were above 350ppm. Source site etc were problems tho to get the atmospheric mix, hence the wide variability of the readings.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Nov 24, 2009 0:46:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 24, 2009 0:49:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 24, 2009 0:55:16 GMT
Actually, there are serious problems with ice core data. I can't remember the paper, but it was published in 2008 or this year. Seems to be contamination problems big time. This was found out by using an isotope method. Now you have me curious again.....I will have to find it.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 24, 2009 0:57:16 GMT
Thank you. I am going to have to read those links. I wonder...has anyone read a paper of the economic effects of co2 for biomass etc? I believe it has been firmly established that a higher level of co2 is good for plants. What is the economic benifit for humanity of improved plant growth etc?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Nov 24, 2009 9:01:31 GMT
Actually, there are serious problems with ice core data. I can't remember the paper, but it was published in 2008 or this year. Seems to be contamination problems big time. This was found out by using an isotope method. Now you have me curious again.....I will have to find it. Yeah, there are a couple of potential problems. For a start the slow compression of the snow pack over decades (centuries) most likely smooths out the minor fluctuations in CO2. Then as you pull it out of the ice, the pressure decreases, potentially leading to some of the clathrates degassing...at least partly. I forget what the titles of the papers were. : \
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 24, 2009 9:14:31 GMT
Arbitrarily plucked? CO2 concentration's been 180-280 for hundreds of thousands of years. No Matt, CO2 has varied in very recent history and the modern ice core data is worse than suspect. Up until 1985, all ice core data showed CO2 from pre-industrial times to be MUCH HIGHER than today. (which is indeed suspect!) Magically, the numbers dropped when scientists wanted them to! Surprise surprise!! The vast majority of CO2 measurements in the early 1800's were in the 400-550ppm range, but this fell rapidly to 300-350 by the end of the 19th Century. The cooling of the oceans was soaking up extra CO2 (maybe that pumped out of the oceans in the 1700's). All this follows the grand minimum and maximum cycles of the sun - or about 100 years of cooling followed by warming. These cycles are NOT the short 9-11 yr cycles, but much longer events. We are leaving the most recent warm period, and descending into a chill. Hopefully, AGW from CO2 is indeed true, and may offset some of the coming cold. www.co2web.info/stoten92.pdfAttachments:
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 24, 2009 12:59:28 GMT
Matt: There are a few of us old guys around yet who have been reading journals for years. We are the worst skeptics as we have watched values changed to suit a purpose. We are prob the best skeptics in that we know what was known before some presented false values that seem to have stuck.....for now.
|
|
|
Post by oloflind on Nov 25, 2009 21:09:43 GMT
Sigurdur, I recommend you to read the flwg E-G Beck paper giving the results of thousands of CO2 concentration measurements during 180 years: climatepolice.com/Co2_report.pdfFor some reason the address does not form a link, so you will have to copy it into yr browser. I would also like to recommend the Jaworowski article to which a link can be found in my answer to socold, this thread page 1 bottom part.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 25, 2009 22:00:51 GMT
The sources of your information have a credibility problem: "Sources: Barnola, J.-M., Raynaud, D., Lorius, C. and Barkov, N.I. (2003). Historical CO2 record from the Vostok ice core. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge CRU (2007). CRUTEM3v dataset. Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia. www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature [Accessed 5 May 2007] Etheridge, D.M., Steele, L.P., Langenfelds, R.L., Francey, R.J., Barnola, J.-M. and Morgan, V.I. (1998). Historical CO2 records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Keeling, C.D. and Whorf, T.P. (2005). Atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Mann, M.E. and Jones, P.D. (2003). 2,000 Year Hemispheric Multi-proxy Temperature Reconstructions, IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series #2003-051. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder." Give us something without the smell of deceit.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 25, 2009 22:24:51 GMT
Socold wrote: "Ice cores are better because they are not a proxy, they actually capture the old air in ice, providing a sample of past air which can be measured as long as it can be dated sufficiently." How can you be so sure about the ice core sample reliability? Please have a look at the flwg most interesting paper: www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_10-19/2007-11/pdf/38_711_science.pdfBecause I don't believe the claims in that unpublished article represents the science accurately on the matter of ice cores.
|
|
utahpaw
New Member
The only thing that keeps us from learning is what we already know.
Posts: 15
|
Post by utahpaw on Nov 25, 2009 22:41:39 GMT
If it ain't in Wiki, how can it be "science"
|
|
|
Post by dwerth on Nov 26, 2009 0:37:37 GMT
Socold wrote:
Why do you not believe it? Because it was not published? Because the logic or data is flawed? Your statement does not hold much water with me, I am sorry. We are dealing with something very, very important. Personal belief about a statement is not good enough. Solid, logical proof is what is required. So, I challenge you to prove it. Prepare a solid, logical argument that can be held up for cuss/discussion that refutes Dr. Jaworowski on this matter. Otherwise, your statement is merely a statment of belief.
Dr. Jaworowski makes a fairly solid logical argument in this paper and, in fact, he also made a logical argument to the US Senate on the same topic. I do not care for some of the tone he uses, (ad hominem attacks, a couple of strawman arguments, etc) but the logic is sound. I still need to look at the sources that he cites, and verify the veracity of his arguments, but at least the raw logic that he uses is quite solid.
|
|
|
Post by dwerth on Nov 26, 2009 0:41:39 GMT
If it ain't in Wiki, how can it be "science" I am assuming you meant to add the /sarcasm tag? If we wish to calmly get to the truth about climate change and humanity's effect on it, we need to eliminate ad hominem attacks, and specify where we are sarcastic. This helps us all to keep a level head, and limit our arguments to the interpretation of the data. Sorry, been reading too many personal attacks on these boards, and that gets to me. Many of us disagree, but please, for the sake of all involved, lets keep it civil.
|
|