|
Post by kiwistonewall on Apr 15, 2009 6:43:58 GMT
Some think not, and direct measures of high CO2 in the 1800's has been ignored: www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS%20Pre-industrial%20CO2.pdf"The pre-industrial CO2 level was not significantly lower than current levels. Neither they nor the present readings are high relatively to the geologic record. The entire output of computer climate models begins with the assumption that preindustrial levels were measurably lower. Elimination of this assumption further undermines the claim that the warming in the industrial era period was due to human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Combined with their assumption that CO2 causes temperature increase when all records show the opposite then it is not surprising that IPCC predictions of temperature increase are consistently wrong."
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 15, 2009 11:34:40 GMT
As noted elsewhere recently on this forum, locally measured CO2 levels can be higher than the average due to local sources of CO2, so it is not too surprising if some 19th century measurements were contaminated by local CO2 or by experimental error. It's a paranoid fantasy that some sort of all-powerful Keeling dynasty can be in charge of the whole CO2 measurement thing! The following site gives some idea of the wide extent of CO2 measuring: www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/Curiously, "Friend" of science Ball also doesn't seem interested in the question as to where all the CO2 we've emitted has gone!
|
|
|
Post by gridley on Apr 15, 2009 14:26:31 GMT
Steve, while you are correct about CO2 variability and experimental error, charts such as that on page 3 of the paper cited would seem to indicate that there is just as much direct evidence for high or very poorly mixed CO2 as there is for low and well mixed CO2.
The paper is obviously prejudiced and the authors have an axe to grind, but while that should be cause for skepticism it does not warrant automatic dismissal of their data.
I'm new to CO2 direct measurement, but this IS the first time I've heard about pre-industrial direct measures - everywhere else I've seen proxy data until the modern age. Surely this is worth some attention? Proxy data is OK if it is the best you've got, but how do you justify placing it above direct measurements?
As for where the CO2 went - didn't you, in another thread, note that the total calculated human emissions of CO2 fall short of the measured rise in the atmosphere? Clearly, something out there is taking in CO2. Until we know all the things that do so and measure them, we have no grounds to say that any given CO2 isn't consumed/sequestered by said mechanisms.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 15, 2009 15:15:06 GMT
The measurements of the past few decades from quality (ie. away from major CO2 emitters), widely spaced detectors, different methods, and at different levels in the atmosphere show a reasonably well mixed (within 5% or so) CO2 level with a seasonal cycle that doesn't change dramatically (2ppm per year max). Though measurements within cities can be 50% higher.
It is reasonable to assume that the environment was the similar in the 19th century, and that apparent blips that last a few years may be due to experimental error or contamination of part of the record.
Further, if you can find sets of measurements that are likely to be accurate, the lower measurements may be more representative of the average whereas the higher measurements are likely to be representative of "contamination" from local CO2 sources. This is because it is easy to locally increase CO2 but much harder to locally reduce it.
The "where did the CO2 go" point is just an observation that they have ignored a lot of the work that goes into monitoring the "carbon cycle". A compelling case would need to address this issue. The statements *I've* made about the amount of CO2 being much less than the emissions are a bit vague because they are based on my own calculations and a limited reading of the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Apr 15, 2009 22:10:51 GMT
We are such scientific babes. The general ignorance of scientists, outside their extremely narrow fields, is huge. Any scientist worth his salt recognises this, Einstein for one.
We know very little about the carbon cycle, and make huge assumptions. We guess a lot, and guesses prove nothing.
Le Chatelier's principle would have CO2 being more rapidly removed from the atmosphere when it increases, and less rapidly removed if it decreases.
The Oceans are highly buffered, and will increase carbonate deposition if CO2 levels increase.
The "average" effect of carbonate sediments being recycled via volcanoes is largely unknown- as we have no accurate measures over a geologically significant period.
One good asteroid into carbonate sediment could (probably has) massively increased CO2 in the past. Interestingly, was extinction caused by massive cooling or massive warming? The later is now being put forward as the CO2 warming paradigm takes hold.
True, CO2 MIGHT be increasing over time, but we may also be just measuring a cyclical up period from oceanic outgassing from a solar maxima. Increasing CO2 MIGHT be causing warming but this has certainly not been proven.
But then our Sun might go Nova, or even into a super cold event. We might have a series of super volcanic events, be struck by an asteroid, destroyed by CERN (if they ever get it working) etc etc
Some scientists act like frightened parents who worry about all the things that MIGHT happen to their children. That path leads to stagnation and inaction, as it is impossible to prevent the massively destructive, but unlikely, events.
We need to face problems as and when they arrive.
Act too soon, and you spend all your resources defending against the wrong threat, as the French found with the Maginot line.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 15, 2009 22:45:38 GMT
Perhaps co2 doesn't even exist. I mean the molecule. Perhaps the atomic model of matter is all wrong and scientists have been barking up the wrong tree.
Given the possibility that co2 doesn't even exist, how can we be so sure the greenhouse effect and global warming exist?
Edit to add: Does the concept of "temperature" even make any sense?
We surely cannot claim these things are "facts" while I am still willing to debate them.
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Apr 15, 2009 22:53:52 GMT
"socold. perhaps co2 doesn't even exist"
Just in case, we should adopt the AGW precautionary principle and eliminate all the AGW alarmists just to be sure. If co2 does not exist we can do without loonies building models about imaginary concepts based on an imaginary gas. But to be fair we should only eliminate 0.03% of them as that is the man made component of the imaginary gas.
|
|
|
Post by gridley on Apr 16, 2009 17:44:27 GMT
Perhaps co2 doesn't even exist. I mean the molecule. Perhaps the atomic model of matter is all wrong and scientists have been barking up the wrong tree. Given the possibility that co2 doesn't even exist, how can we be so sure the greenhouse effect and global warming exist? Edit to add: Does the concept of "temperature" even make any sense? We surely cannot claim these things are "facts" while I am still willing to debate them. Perhaps CO2 does not exist, although unlike AGW, CO2 is widely (I would say all but universally) accepted to exist in MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT fields of HARD science and ENGINEERING. AGW, OTOH, seems to only be widely accepted within the fields of climate change (a very new science) and politics (neither a hard science nor an engineering discipline). When I can get an ABET-accredited degree in Global Warming Engineering, let me know.
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Apr 16, 2009 21:30:44 GMT
"When I can get an ABET-accredited degree in Global Warming Engineering, let me know. "
I'll sell you one of those with full ABET accreditation for $1.99 or 3 for $4.99. Yeah I know, AGW prices have plummeted recently, I have a shed full of these degrees, can't seem to shift them anymore.
:-)
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Apr 16, 2009 21:49:29 GMT
Dear Socold, I'm not sure if you are being pathetic or attempting humour.
All of science is models and theories. We create these 'models' of the real world. Sometimes there is a close correspondence between our mental constructs (atoms, temperature etc).
When this is so, we can do useful things (internal combustion engines, nuclear power, flat panel TV's ;D)
When we haven't got a clue (climate) our models don't work. (I'm using model in the conceptual sense, not referring to computer simulations. When our ideas do not correspond closely to reality, then we cannot predict, and do not truly understand.
This doesn't stop us trying! But anyone who makes their model reality more important that what actually exists is creating and living in a fictional world.
True humility, and an acceptance of mankind's relative ignorance, are an important hallmark of the truly great scientist. Only such men can climb out of ignorance and grasp new insights as we struggle toward better (but never perfect) understanding of this fascinating world we live in.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 17, 2009 2:46:22 GMT
Would someone care to give references for atmospheric life cycles being on the order 50-200 (or even 1000) years as we are told by AGW promoters? I've seen 35 references by T. Segalstad. Sorry, too lazy to paste into tables. folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htmAuthors [publication year] Residence time (years) Based on natural carbon-14 Craig [1957] 7 +/- 3 Revelle & Suess [1957] 7 Arnold & Anderson [1957] 10 including living and dead biosphere (Siegenthaler, 1989) 4-9 Craig [1958] 7 +/- 5 Bolin & Eriksson [1959] 5 Broecker [1963], recalc. by Broecker & Peng [1974] 8 Craig [1963] 5-15 Keeling [1973b] 7 Broecker [1974] 9.2 Oeschger et al. [1975] 6-9 Keeling [1979] 7.53 Peng et al. [1979] 7.6 (5.5-9.4) Siegenthaler et al. [1980] 7.5 Lal & Suess [1983] 3-25 Siegenthaler [1983] 7.9-10.6 Kratz et al. [1983] 6.7 Based on Suess Effect Ferguson [1958] 2 (1-8) Bacastow & Keeling [1973] 6.3-7.0 Based on bomb carbon-14 Bien & Suess [1967] >10 Münnich & Roether [1967] 5.4 Nydal [1968] 5-10 Young & Fairhall [1968] 4-6 Rafter & O'Brian [1970] 12 Machta (1972) 2 Broecker et al. [1980a] 6.2-8.8 Stuiver [1980] 6.8 Quay & Stuiver [1980] 7.5 Delibrias [1980] 6.0 Druffel & Suess [1983] 12.5 Siegenthaler [1983] 6.99-7.54 Based on radon-222 Broecker & Peng [1974] 8 Peng et al. [1979] 7.8-13.2 Peng et al. [1983] 8.4 Based on solubility data Murray (1992) 5.4 Based on carbon-13/carbon-12 mass balance Segalstad (1992) 5.4
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 17, 2009 10:43:53 GMT
Magellan, you've badly misunderstood that table.
Residence times for CO2 say absolutely nothing about the time that would be required to, say, reduce CO2 from 400ppm to 300ppm. Residence time measures the average time it takes for a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere to be taken out of the atmosphere. Many of those processes though are one in, one out processes
To put it another way, the average "residence time" for a human (ie. lifetime) is measured in decades. Does that mean that within a few decades the human population will revert to that of "pre-industrial times".
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 17, 2009 18:53:35 GMT
Perhaps co2 doesn't even exist. I mean the molecule. Perhaps the atomic model of matter is all wrong and scientists have been barking up the wrong tree. Given the possibility that co2 doesn't even exist, how can we be so sure the greenhouse effect and global warming exist? Edit to add: Does the concept of "temperature" even make any sense? We surely cannot claim these things are "facts" while I am still willing to debate them. Perhaps CO2 does not exist, although unlike AGW, CO2 is widely (I would say all but universally) accepted to exist in MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT fields of HARD science and ENGINEERING. At least you admit the possibility that co2 does not exist. That's all we need, a small seed of doubt that can grow into a giant oak of a conspiracy theory. Oh of course multiple independant fields of hard science accept co2 exists. If they didn't they would lose their funding.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 17, 2009 19:00:29 GMT
Dear Socold, I'm not sure if you are being pathetic or attempting humour. All of science is models and theories. When we haven't got a clue (climate) our models don't work. (I'm using model in the conceptual sense, not referring to computer simulations. When our ideas do not correspond closely to reality, then we cannot predict, and do not truly understand. Here's an interesting image: You can see the models are wrong, but they are close. But does that justify a "they don't work" argument? Can we ignore the climate they can reproduce just because there are other parts they don't?
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Apr 17, 2009 20:27:19 GMT
I'm new to this board, but have enjoyed the conversations for the past year or so. If I may, I suggest that part of the problem, re: the general public, is simply language, with a strong dose of "Don't Know, Don't Care" thrown in. Since science is in large part dependant on probability statements and associated number crunching, perhaps y'all will consider a small offering that may assist in future conversations, here and in other sections of the board, or with friends and neighbors. I recommend a perusal of E.T. Jaynes (deceased ) work regarding Probability and Statistics, (the logic of Science, and the language of Science respectively ). Some may already be acquainted with Jaynes work. A link: bayes.wustl.edu/In particular the book he wrote titled "Probability, The Logic of Science" Available thru Amazon, of course.
|
|