How can anyone question man's significant role in global warming?

[Andre]

incidentely, http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/fortiespike.GIF is a plot of the mentioned publications with all values avaible reduced to monthly averages.

 

[Skyhunter]

incidentely, http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/fortiespike.GIF is a plot of the mentioned publications with all values avaible reduced to monthly averages.

Sorry Andre, but I am not going to believe that modern CO₂ science is being conducted by incompetent scientists. If the atmospheric CO₂ content fluctuated wildly, then we would have observed this over the last 50 years.

The data does not fit what has been observed since 1957.

So.

Either the old data using chemical analysis is wrong. or...

The new data using NDIR spectroscopy is wrong. or...

There is a giant conspiracy to force civilization to stop practicing necromancy by burning their ancestors in the form of fossil fuels.

 

[Andre]

Sorry Andre, but I am not going to believe that modern CO₂ science is being conducted by incompetent scientists. If the atmospheric CO₂ content fluctuated wildly, then we would have observed this over the last 50 years.

Why? There was also neither fluctuation between about 1885 and 1933 nor after 1957 in which time the measurement with identical the same *wrong* chemical analysis showed nevertheless "acceptable" values around 300ppm

The new data using NDIR spectroscopy is wrong. or...

Why? the last chemical measurements agreed nicely with the spectroscopic results.

There is a giant conspiracy to force civilization to stop practicing necromancy by burning their ancestors in the form of fossil fuels.

Well as far as I'm concerned, the whole billion dollar climate hype business is also based on the judgement of a single man, rejecting CO2 data already in 1938 that did not suit his purpose, without any critical review.

 

[Skyhunter]

Why? There was also neither fluctuation between about 1885 and 1933 nor after 1957 in which time the measurement with identical the same *wrong* chemical analysis showed nevertheless "acceptable" values around 300ppm



Why? the last chemical measurements agreed nicely with the spectroscopic results.



Well as far as I'm concerned, the whole billion dollar climate hype business is also based on the judgement of a single man, rejecting CO2 data already in 1938 that did not suit his purpose, without any critical review.

I have not seen any chemical measurements after 1957. As far as I know no one uses the chemical method anymore. The fluctuations between 1885 and 1933 were not as erratic as before and after, however they did vary as much as 30ppm from year to year, considerably more than the measurements taken after 1957; and the ice cores, do not match the readings for that period.

 

[Andre]

I have not seen any chemical measurements after 1957. As far as I know no one uses the chemical method anymore.

Only at schools out of curiosity. Seems to work quite nicely.

The fluctuations between 1885 and 1933 were not as erratic as before and after, however they did vary as much as 30ppm from year to year, considerably more than the measurements taken after 1957;

Yes and one should wonder, if the chemical samplings before 1933 and after 1955 are in the expected range, why was every measurement with the same method higher anywhere? Do we accept that all those samplers went nuts collectively or that we are confronted with a phenomenon that is not understood yet?

and the ice cores, do not match the readings for that period.

Ice cores with the first 80-100 meter open firn with hundreds to thousends years of free ventilation/difussion, cannot register decadal scale spikes

 

[Skyhunter]

Yes and one should wonder, if the chemical samplings before 1933 and after 1955 are in the expected range, why was every measurement with the same method higher anywhere? Do we accept that all those samplers went nuts collectively or that we are confronted with a phenomenon that is not understood yet?

The samplings are not indicative of global atmospheric CO₂. I do find them interesting, but not particularly relevant the debate about AGW.

Old and somewhat questionable science is not sufficient evidence to refute AGW. From what is now known about atmospheric CO₂ physics, such erratic fluxes are not possible. If such fluxes occur and can be observed in the future, without leaving other proxy evidence, then these samplings will add a new dimension to our understanding of the carbon cycle. Until such time it is right to attribute these readings to regional anomalies or sampling errors.

Ice cores with the first 80-100 meter open firn with hundreds to thousends years of free ventilation/difussion, cannot register decadal scale spikes

Now why would they not?

If the CO₂ concentration was at 430 ppm for a decade, it would increase the concentrations in the lower firn (80-100 meters). So the ice that formed at these depths in the 1930's and 40's would register a higher concentration of CO₂.

There would be a smoothing of the spike, but a spike of that magnitude would leave a trace in the ice core, as well as other proxy evidence.

What I find more interesting than old air samples is this;

Carbon Cycle Budget for Anthropogenic Effects

Sources:

Fossil Fuel Burning & Cement Production 5.5±0.5 GtC/yr
Forest Burning & Soil Disruption 1.6±1.0 GtC/yr
Total Anthropogenic 7.1±1.1 GtC/yr


Sinks:

Storage in Atmosphere 3.3±0.2 GtC/yr
Oceanic Uptake 2.0±0.8 GtC/yr
Boreal Forest Regrowth 0.5±0.5 GtC/yr
Missing Sink 1.3±1.5 GtC/yr

GtC = Gigatons of carbon = 109tons data from IPCC, 1996

http://www.carleton.edu/departments/geol/DaveSTELLA/Carbon/carbon_intro.htm

Where is the unaccounted for carbon sink?

When will it and the other sinks become saturated?

As the oceans warm their ability to absorb CO₂ decreases.

How will this effect global temperatures?

 

[Andre]

The samplings are not indicative of global atmospheric CO₂. I do find them interesting, but not particularly relevant the debate about AGW.

Why not? So which sampling is? What is the selection standard. And how objective would that criterium be. It's not like the inverse proportionality between the attractiveness of the facts and the acceptance standards, is it? If facts are unattractive we refuse to accept them.

Old and somewhat questionable science is not sufficient evidence to refute AGW.

Since when is there a "best before..." date, or should studies also include a sentence: "these data are only valid until Nov 2th 2006?" if you want to question the science, you read the papers, reproduce the methods that were used and calibrate the results with modern methods. And remember, they were first, so the onus of falsifying their results is with the challenger.

I wonder what results will be there for the reproduction of those studies that produced low CO₂ measements consisently. I read that some used sulpher acid to dry out the air. I wonder what that does to the CO₂ contents of the air.

From what is now known about atmospheric CO₂ physics, such erratic fluxes are not possible.

No that's a circular reasoning, we observe flat CO₂ rates in the ice cores, rejecting data that show much higher rates, so we conclude that CO₂ rates of changes cannot be big and we compute a resident time of 100 years for CO₂ empirically, based on our selective data. In reality the annual balanced exchange rate between oceans and atmosphere are in the order of magnitude of 100 GTC. Change something in that balance and the accumulation rate of CO₂ in the atmosphere may be surprising. Actually there are several of that kind of CO₂ spikes in the past recorded in fossil leaf stomata proxies.

If such fluxes occur and can be observed in the future, without leaving other proxy evidence, then these samplings will add a new dimension to our understanding of the carbon cycle.

We can anticipate that by returning to the scientific method and accept sound observations that do not fit our world view, even if it refutes the misunderstandings about the greenhouse gas mechanism.

Until such time it is right to attribute these readings to regional anomalies or sampling errors.

How many samples are required and how many regions to realize that there is more to it?

Now why would they not?

If the CO₂ concentration was at 430 ppm for a decade, it would increase the concentrations in the lower firn (80-100 meters). So the ice that formed at these depths in the 1930's and 40's would register a higher concentration of CO₂.

Well, there was an issue with CO₂ in firn and ambient temperatures. Since the Greenland Ice cores did show strange spikes and consistent CO₂ values of over 300ppmv in contrast with the Dome C, Vostok Antarctic proxies, it was declared void, probably contamination, chemical reactions and extramorphes, bacterea algea, etc due to the higher temperatures (ca -33C) compared to the Antarctic domes (-45-60C). But the firn closure rate of those is far to low (mm to cm per year) to register any spike. So we found a high accumulation core in West Antarctica, Siple Dome with meters per year, which shows a neat CO₂ proxy fitting exactly to our perceptions...

However the firn temperature of ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/AGDC/nsi0098_severinghaus/firn_temps.txt is much higher than Greenland. So, how is that for selective acceptance standards? How about accepting both Greenland and Siple Dome, and we have a problem to solve; or neither Greenland and Siple Dome, and we have no data anymore? The latter is probably more correct. As Severinghaus et al has figured out something out about al kind of fractionation processes going on in the firn, we have probably seen only the beginning. For instance, how about thermal and molecular fractination of CO₂ in relation to O₂ and N₂ in the diffusion processes between firn and the atmosphere?

The advantage of not being steered by the AGW paradigm is that you can wonder freely about surprises in nature, instead of ignoring them or declaring them void. But I agree that the 1935-1945 CO₂ spike should be visible in more proxies. We’re working at d13C in tree rings currently and perhaps we can find some high resolution coral of that time

 

[Bystander]

(snip)What I find more interesting than old air samples is this;
http://www.carleton.edu/departments/geol/DaveSTELLA/Carbon/carbon_intro.htm

"Carbon Cycle Budget Estimates "

Where is the unaccounted for carbon sink?

When will it and the other sinks become saturated?

"Where ... ?" With all the other unaccounted for fluxes. "When ... ?" Never. Conservation of mass takes care of that concern.

As the oceans warm their ability to absorb CO₂ decreases.

The oceans already contain more CO₂ than they would if in equilibrium with the atmosphere; they are a dynamic, biologically driven sink for carbon. The capacity of the oceans to sink C depends upon biological productivity --- increase that, and reduce atmospheric CO₂; reduce that, and increase atmospheric CO₂.

How will this effect global temperatures?

It won't.

 

[Skyhunter]

The advantage of not being steered by the AGW paradigm is that you can wonder freely about surprises in nature, instead of ignoring them or declaring them void. But I agree that the 1935-1945 CO₂ spike should be visible in more proxies. We’re working at d13C in tree rings currently and perhaps we can find some high resolution coral of that time

Looking forward to hearing about the results.

 

[Sinimod]

Andre,

Perhaps you could provide any links to stomatal evidence for these huge CO2 fluctuations. I would think that that shouldn't be difficult since stomatal data has been used all the way back to the Younger Dryas.

 

[Andre]

Sure,

http://www.bio.uu.nl/~palaeo/Personeel/Lenny/artikellinks/full.pdf

fig 5.4 pag 61 and page 90

 

[Sinimod]

Sure,

http://www.bio.uu.nl/~palaeo/Personeel/Lenny/artikellinks/full.pdf

fig 5.4 pag 61 and page 90

It seems there is a discrepancy between the Kurschner and Visscher graphs and data of Kreutz for CO2 levels in the 1940s. In addition, there is no mention in the text provided in the above link of CO2 concentrations reaching 430 ppmv in the 1940s. In fact, their data substantiates the belief that CO2 levels rose from approximately 290 ppmv at the outset of the industrial revolution to current levels of approximately 375. Granted, Kurschner and Visscher graphs show a spike to 390 ppmv, but that controversy must still be worked out.

 

[majin]

thanks amazon

I think we all owe a great deal of thanks:!)
to our friend the amazon forest...does anyone know why.....hmmm

 

[Mk]

It supplies firewood and housing to a lot of people that live in it?

 

[Andre]

It seems there is a discrepancy between the Kurschner and Visscher graphs and data of Kreutz for CO2 levels in the 1940s. In addition, there is no mention in the text provided in the above link of CO2 concentrations reaching 430 ppmv in the 1940s. In fact, their data substantiates the belief that CO2 levels rose from approximately 290 ppmv at the outset of the industrial revolution to current levels of approximately 375. Granted, Kurschner and Visscher graphs show a spike to 390 ppmv, but that controversy must still be worked out.

Excellent observation indeed. The stomata techique uses *"known"*(??) CO₂ levels of the 20th century to 'measure' the stomata sensitivity. This is based on the Keeling / Callendar graph and Siple Dome ice core. None of it accounts for the 1940ies spike.

So, what they did was substituting the assumed CO2 levels on the time scale, that made 1940 equal to some 307 ppmv. Now, if you look at all the calibrating graphs with the linear regressions, you'll see that at 307 ppmv not a lot is happening. Very few samples. An odd sample around that area shows indeed lower values. Transversing those samples to an imaginary 400-420ppmv point would still leave a reasonable regression with a lower stomata sensitivity, although one would not be proud of the r2 values.

I'd say that the 20th century values neither exclude nor substantiate the spike.

 

[Sinimod]

Excellent observation indeed. The stomata techique uses *"known"*(??) CO₂ levels of the 20th century to 'measure' the stomata sensitivity. This is based on the Keeling / Callendar graph and Siple Dome ice core. None of it accounts for the 1940ies spike.

So, what they did was substituting the assumed CO2 levels on the time scale, that made 1940 equal to some 307 ppmv. Now, if you look at all the calibrating graphs with the linear regressions, you'll see that at 307 ppmv not a lot is happening. Very few samples. An odd sample around that area shows indeed lower values. Transversing those samples to an imaginary 400-420ppmv point would still leave a reasonable regression with a lower stomata sensitivity, although one would not be proud of the r2 values.

I'd say that the 20th century values neither exclude nor substantiate the spike.

I am certainly no expert in stomatal methodology for estimating atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Nor do I profess to have an intimate understanding of Kreutz's methodolgy. But a discrepancy of over 100 ppmv CO2 concentration strains credibility. It appears to me that one must choose which methodology works here, and which doesn't. At this point, I place my bets on the Taylor ice core data from Antarctica. Calcium dust concentrations are extremely low in ice cores from Antarctica, and are considered to have virtually no effect on estimates of CO2 concentrations. Perhaps you could provide references on the effects of extremeophiles in ice and how their activities could compromise oxygen isotope estimates of paleotemperatures or atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

 

[Andre]

...Perhaps you could provide references on the effects of extremeophiles in ice and how their activities could compromise oxygen isotope estimates of paleotemperatures or atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Wrong connection. extremophiles ruin CO₂ concentration proxies, not water isotopes. They do that when the ice sheets are too warm, which is the case with all high accumulation ice cores. The low accumulating ice cores seem cold enough (Vostok, EPICA Dome-C) but lack resolution.

The paleothermometers are severely biased by precipitation. You can only "measure" temperature when it snows. There are basically two problems.

1. When it snows, it's usually warmer than average:

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~helsen/PDF/thesis.pdf

2. Changes in seasonality of precipitation changes the annual ratio of light/cold winter snow and heavy/warm summer snow. Let me quote a small part of a submitted article:

It may be recalled, for instance, that the isotope spikes in the ice cores are thought to represent warm-cold transitions instead of dramatic precipitation changes. Fortunately, it had been recognized for a long time that these isotope changes could also be caused by precipitation changes depending on the seasonality[1]. This idea, however, has been rejected on the base of climate modeling[2], due to the absence of evidence of all these complications. More and more articles are now emerging, though, which report much earlier warming than the Greenland ice cores reveal[3], and more articles about the Younger Dryas appear to confirm the dry character much more than the cold character[4]. It could have been cold in many places, but not as cold as the ice cores suggest. Moreover, several studies report warm summers in that period.[5]


Digging further, it appears that we do indeed encounter a controversy about the nature of these isotope spikes. As it is becoming increasingly clear now that the Northern Hemisphere warming after the Last Glacial Maximum was much earlier (ca. 17 ka Cal BP) than the Bølling Allerød spikes (14.5 ka Cal BP) in the ice cores suggested, synchronous with the post-glacial warming of the Southern Hemisphere[6]. However, the same almost identical isotope spikes are recognized in several other sediment proxies over the Northern Hemisphere[7], hence indeed too late to register that warming. Consequently, those cannot be seen as the usual proxies for temperatures. So,it becomes apparent that some re-considerations of the conclusions are in order.


1. Steig E.J., P.M. Grootes, M Stuiver 1994. Seasonal Precipitation Timing and Ice Core Records, Science 16 December: 1885-1886

2. Jouzel, et al 1997, Validity of the Temperature Reconstruction from Water Isotopes in Ice Cores; Journal of Geophysical Research Vol 102, No C12 pp 26,471-26,487, November 30

3. Schaefer, J.M. et al 2006; Near-Synchronous Interhemispheric Termination of the Last Glacial Maximum in Mid-Latitudes Science 9 June 2006: Vol. 312. no. 5779, pp. 1510 – 1513

4. Clark, D.H, 2003, Complex Timing and Patterns of Glaciation in the American Cordillera during Termination 1, Poster presentation XVI INQUA Congress, Paper No. 88-4, July 30.

5. Björck, S., et al, 2002. Anomalously mild Younger Dryas summer conditions in southern Greenland. Geology May, v. 30; no. 5; pp. 427–430

6. Schaefer, J.M et al 2006; Near-Synchronous Interhemispheric Termination of the Last Glacial Maximum in Mid-Latitudes Science 9 June 2006: Vol. 312. no. 5779, pp. 1510 – 1513

7. Yu Z, Eicher U 2001 Three Amphi-Atlantic Century-Scale Cold Events during the Bølling-Allerød Warm Period, Geographie Physique et Quaternaire ISSN : 0705-7199 2001 Vol. 55 pg - 171-180