Prev  1  2  

Comments 51 to 55 out of 55:

51. scaddenp at 05:57 AM on 6 November, 2011
    Actually I can. Try Severinghaus & Battle 2006. You can find other interesting papers (eg look for MA Headly) by looking for papers that cite it in google scholar.
52. John Marshall at 22:31 PM on 25 February, 2012
    The problem with the graph showing the atmospheric CO2 content, with the rapid increase in the 20th century is that it is wrong. CO2 has never followed a level of 250ppmv over the past 10,000 years. That claim is a lie. In 1850's CO2 measurements showed atmospheric CO2 content to be 490ppmv, well above today's level and according to alarmists well over the 'tipping point' level.
53. Tom Curtis at 23:39 PM on 25 February, 2012
    John Marshall @52, if you run your car in a closed garage and measure the CO2 concentration in the garage, it will be well above 390 ppmv. It would be obviously foolish to conclude from that that global CO2 concentrations are greater than 390 ppmv. You have a nearby source of CO2 that is contaminating the measurement.
    
    As it happens, there are many sources of CO2 contamination. Not only are there cars, factories and people in abundance in cities, all busily emitting CO2 in abundance, and consequently contaminating any measurement. Not only that, but trees and grass are net CO2 sinks in daylight, but net emitters of CO2 at night. Consequently measurements in a forest on a still night will show elevated CO2 levels, again the result of contamination.
    
    In the 1850s, and indeed, even in the 1930s this was not well known, and many measurements of CO2 concentrations were made in areas where contamination would be expected. What is worse, Beck, who should have known better compiled a list of measurements without compensating for local contamination beyond the crudest measure, and simply took an average of measurements to determine the CO2 concentration. Given that CO2 concentrations can vary by 100 ppmv or more on a daily basis due to local contamination, the result significantly overestimates background CO2 levels.
    
    To determine genuine background levels of CO2, you need to get away from local sources of CO2 emission by getting either very far away from their source vertically, as with these measurements over Colorado:
    
    
    
    Note that near ground concentrations shown can be as high as much as 50 ppmv above the upper altitude levels even at 500 meters altitude (let alone the 2 meter altitude used by Beck), but with gain in altitude, CO2 concentrations drop to background levels.
    
    Alternatively you can rely on strong winds to dilute the contamination to determine the background by plotting CO2 levels against wind speed:
    
    
    
    Again, notice when wind velocities are low, local contamination (mostly from forests in this case) can result in CO2 concentrations as high as 600 ppmv, but that the background level is clearly around 390 ppmv.
    
    Or you can get as far away geographically from any contamination as you can, by going to the South Pole:
    
    
    
    Citing measurements that do not take these precautions to ensure they are measuring the genuine background concentrations, rather than a contaminated sample are, of course of no interest.
54. Sphaerica at 00:27 AM on 26 February, 2012
    52, John Marshall,
    
    Please note how easily and completely you fell for what is actually a well understood "lie". You read at a denial site about how CO₂ levels were way higher in the 1800s and there's a paper to prove it. Except it turns out that everyone who cares to actually be skeptical and look at the science knows that's nonsense. Scientists go to great lengths to properly, accurately measure CO₂, and they aren't stupid about it. At the same time, the paper cited by deniers to trumpet this issue was literally stupid about it.
    
    They know this. This information is readily available, and it's pretty obvious if you take just a little while to think about it. So why do denial sites keep feeding people this nonsense?
    
    The point is that you were tricked, and you came in here all full of anger because you thought the ones who tricked you were the scientists. But it wasn't, it was the deniers.
    
    [Fortunately, this site exists exactly because of those sorts of situations. Every time you have one of these "ah ha, got them" moments by reading something at a nonsense denier site, come here to SkS, use the search button, read and learn. After you've done it enough, you'll start to realize that there is no science or truth to the denial arguments. None.]
    
    So how do you feel now? Is your anger redirected at a more appropriate target? Or are you instead simply more firmly invested in finding something to justify your anger at "alarmists?"
    
    And if the latter is the case... doesn't that say something even more important about the "debate."
55. Bernard J. at 01:33 AM on 26 February, 2012
    John Marshall.
    
    Take the hint from Tom Curtis and Sphaerica - you are, to put it nicely, profoundly in error.
    
    If the conversation here is too technical for you, there was a more colloquial one on Deltoid, that should make you blush with embarrassment once you've read through it.
56. DSL at 06:09 AM on 11 April, 2012
    wsugaimd, how do you explain the Keeling Curve? The steady rise of atmospheric CO2 cannot be explained by a nearby volcano. Also, the Hawaiian measurements are corroborated by independent measurements. Read the article above.
57. Tom Curtis at 09:13 AM on 11 April, 2012
    danielc's comment of 6:14 AM, April 11th, 2012:
    
    

    "@wsugaimd:
    
    Go here: Movie showing CO2 levels measured over the last 50 years it includes information from ice cores, and there are MANY data points, not just at hawaii.
    
    Go here: impact of eruptions on global CO2 levels - essentially unmeasurable.
    
    and go here: satellite measurements of CO2 compared to Mauna Loa
    
    Being skeptical of measurements taken at one point, using one method is reasonable, but CO2 measurements have been made at many, many points using many, many methods...

    
    
    Jim Eager's comment of 6:21 AM, April 11th 2012:
    
    

    Wsugaimd @38, your skepticism seems highly selective, since Mauna Loa is not the only location where atmospheric CO2 is monitored. Similarly, ocean pH is monitored at many locations around the globe. If you are truly skeptical then you should be noting what those locations also show, not just those in Hawaii.
    
    As for comparing human CO2 emissions to total CO2 content of the atmosphere, your 1% figure suggests that you are no skeptic, but rather that you are using the trace gas argument distraction (see the "Argument" button in the top bar).
    
    Consider that every single natural source of CO2 is offset by a natural absorption of CO2. The ocean continuously exchanges CO2 with the atmosphere, making it both a source and a sink for CO2. However, it is currently a net sink, meaning it absorbs more CO2 than it emits, which is why ocean pH is decreasing.
    
    Similarly, the terrestrial biosphere both emits and absorbs CO2, and it, too is currently a net absorber, although that may well change. Even volcanic emissions of CO2 are offset by geologic sequestration of CO2 via silicate rock weathering and calcium carbonate shell deposition on the sea floor.
    
    However, there is no human absorption of CO2. Zero. There is only human emission of CO2. Every gram of CO2 we emit must either be absorbed by a natural sink or remain in the atmosphere.
    
    Fortunately the ocean, biosphere and lithosphere absorb 100% of natural emissions, *plus* roughly half of the carbon that humans emit, leaving only half of it to accumulate in the atmosphere. In other words, we humans have been responsible for 200% of the measured 38% increase in atmospheric CO2.
    
    A true skeptic should be able to tell the difference between a 1% annual emission rate and a 38% cumulative increase, don't you think?"

    
    
    danielc's comment of 6:33 AM, April 11th 2012:
    
    

    "@Jim Eager #42:
    
    The argument I like to use is this:
    
    Say you have 10,000 dollars in the bank (that's 1 million pennies).
    
    300 of those pennies are red pennies, and they earn triple interest.
    
    Every day, I am going to add three red pennies to your bank account.
    
    For every time you earn triple interest, another free red penny is added to your bank account (positive feedback).
    
    Are you going to refuse? NO!
    Are the red pennies in your account, and the extra red pennies I add year on year (and the triple compound interest they receive going to add significant amounts of money to your account? YES! Esp. over significant amounts of time."

    Response: TC: The three quoted comments above are in response to wsugaimd's of topic comment here, and have been quoted here in lieu of simple deletion.
58. Tom Curtis at 09:47 AM on 11 April, 2012
    wusgaimd, would you care to inform us which volcano is contaminating the CO2 measurements at the South Pole (shown @53 above)?
    
    For comparison, here is the full Keeling Curve from Mauna Loa:
    
    

Prev  1  2  

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.