Actual Antarctic Temperatures != Climate Model Predictions
By Martin A. Knight Posted in Policy | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (87) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Antarctic Temperatures Disagree with Climate Model Predictions
A new report on climate over the world’s southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth’s climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.
It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.
David Bromwich, professor of geography and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco ...
What?!
Read on . . .
All these models cannot be wrong! The IPCC cannot be wrong! The debate is over! The science is settled! Dissenters are all shills for Big Oil lying through their evil slimy teeth!
I can scientifically disprove this so-called "Professor's" so-called "observations" and prove that they are all lies by the answers to these two simple questions;
[1] Where did the funding for his "study" come from?
[2] Is he or has he ever been a Republican?
This "Professor" is obviously a hater of the environment ... and most likely a racist, sexist homophobe as well. I demand that he be fired from Ohio State University immediately.
[H/T]: Jonah Goldberg
ALL the scientists agree.
____
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged. — J. Michael Waller
“It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now,” he said. “Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It’s very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth.”
“The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica."
Bromwich doesn't seem to be saying the models are wrong, or that the conclusions of the scientific community are wrong. Nor does he add any political overtones to his research.
depends on those advocating hysteria over MMCDCGW (that's man-made carbon dioxide caused global warming to all you govt-type acronym impaired folks) he was just engaging in a convenient bit of CYA.
Regardless of your global warming POV, this post skews the information presented in the article. Why didn't you include these portions, for example?
“It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now,” he said. “Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It’s very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth.” ...
“In some sense, we might have competing effects going on in Antarctica where there is low-level CO2 warming but that may be swamped by the effects of ozone depletion,” he said. “The year 2006 was the all-time maximum for ozone depletion over the Antarctic.”
Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn’t necessarily mean that the models are wrong.
"It isn’t surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn’t be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.
that doesn't fit the models. How much protesting was done when the "Warmest December on Record - Proof of Global Warming" articles were published? Come on, be consistent.
The data doesn't support the models. Change the models.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
you don't think what you exerpted here makes a very compelling case for much of anything.
This, for instance, is just profoundly silly
"It isn’t surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn’t be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.
Remoteness has nothing to do with anything because, as he says in his next breath, these are global models.
His use of "equally exact" to mean "utterly wrong" is nothing short of Orwellian.
This is a reply to both the above seeing as they are nearly identical.
Well it becomes obvious that I will never be able to retire to teaching. I hate repeating myself and it becomes increasingly obvious that large parts of the population will never ever be able to pick things up on the first go.
What can't be garnered from this article by just a simple read ?
Do you really feel that measuring temperature for the Antartic is more difficult today than it was for the entire globe a hundred and twenty years ago or 2000 years ago ?
Doesn't it strike as a bit odd that the Antartic isn't experiencing global warming and the Great Satan isn't either ?
Oh yes the republicans and oil companies worked out a deal with the devil that if we would buy SUVS we would be exempt.
When the models predictions don't match reality it means the model is F'd. This is what wrong means. Things like this are what overturn scientific theories. Do yourself a favor and google luminous ether. Or google copenhagen interpretation and everet wheeler.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
is here, from the NOAA. 2006 was the hottest year on record. And here is their plot, to 2006:
You know reinterpreting old data is exactly what triggered the search for a short range repulsive force in 80's.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Looks like all of global warming is contained in adjustments to the data.
Must be nice to be able to adjust your data to fit your models.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Of course you won't get it because you are an apostate of the Church of MMCDIEDGW (Man Made Carbon Dioxide Induced Enormously Disastrous Global Warming). Seriously, you have done yeoman's work here helping the rest of us see alternative data to consider and I appreciate it very much.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Sorry. I'm late to the discussion, so I'm replying to old comments. Joliphant, I can't read your graph on temperature adjustments because there are no units for the y-axis, no title, and no context or link to check it out for myself. Could you provide some more info on this so I can see whether this graph actually accounts for "all of global warming"?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Climateaudit.org if you check my blog on this site theres a list of climate information resources, and a decent test on global warming.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
McIntyre's blog. Check the comments by Jerry Brenan. USHCN data is adjusted, for all kinds of good reasons (described here.
McIntyre is plotting the difference between 1999 unadjusted results and 2006 adjusted results. He might as well have plotted the difference between 1999 un- and adjusted results; the intervening years make little difference.
yes all kinds of good reasons to adjust 70+ year old data.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I described the origin of the name here, and P the younger was the correspondent of Tacitus. But I guess I identify more with his Dad.
The elder is the youngers uncle unless you feel in common with a latifundia owner
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Yes, I was remembering PY's fascinating account of PE's death at Pompeii, and forgetting that he wasn't quite as closely related as he made it sound.
http://www.ocs.orst.edu/prism/products/viewer.phtml?file=/pub/prism/us/g...
It's a map showing the deviation from average maximum temperature for 2007 to date. More that 13 degrees below normal in most of the country.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
The long-term mean temperature of the contiguous United States has remained "unchanged" throughout the entire hundred-year period covered by said graph.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Well it becomes obvious that I will never be able to retire to teaching. I hate repeating myself and it becomes increasingly obvious that large parts of the population will never ever be able to pick things up on the first go.
Maybe you should include yourself in this part of the population. Neither I nor the commenter before me said anything about the veracity of the Dr.'s claims. Rather, we claimed the cherry picked quotes in this post skewed the information presented in the article. Then you reply with a bunch of (equally unreliable) info about global warming that has nothing to do with the argument? How is that "picking things up"?
Maybe you should give it a second "go."
Literally, its difficult to even frame a reaction to someone who is so unwilling to read what they wrote.
Is it just a complete lack of comprehension and unwillingness to read the related material, or the usual I took a position and damned if someone will use facts to shake me from it?
What is it you didn't understand about what you put in your post ? You have a man saying the data contradict the model, but since they do they should be ignored.
As to your assertion about what I posted as being unreliable thats about as good as the Climatologists Claims that the models hold despite the data.
If you want to dispute what I had to say bring in some facts. Pliny at least argues with facts that are relevant, you have to respect him for that.
You have nothing but an offended whine at being called on your statements.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
"These are global models and shouldn’t be expected to be equally exact for all locations"
Just what parts o the world ARE these models exact for?
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.
that fits the desired results of course.
John
----------
Liberals: Alchemists who have mastered the ability to transmute Lead into a denser form of Lead
A book review
in the NYT
(of all places)
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
I got lost in your excess of sarcasm as the end, but if you think this finding somehow disproves the idea of man-made global warming, I'm not certain we read the same article. For instance, the articles states: "Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn’t necessarily mean that the models are wrong."
But let me translate the comment from academic into English. You know the models aren't working but if I actually say that I may not be able to get a plane ticket back from Antartica.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
An I.C.E. watercraft leaves even more of a carbon footprint. Depite a lower level of output, it has to burn longer.
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.
I know you're joking, but you're still assuming that this guy is only still supporting the models because of job security, when the article lists at least two reasons for the lack of warming in mainland Antarctica (lack of sufficient data and ozone depletion).
MartinAKnight presented this article as a skeptical argument and assumed that the scientist mentioned in the story was a skeptic. Otherwise, there'd be no need to "scientifically disprove this so-called 'Professor's' so-called 'observations' and prove that they are all lies".
It's as if Martin didn't even read the article. Regardless of his motives, the scientist is not a skeptic. He clearly stated other possibilities for the anomaly and then drew the reasonable conclusion that the models are not discredited because of this new information.
I'm getting impression you are being disingenuous
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
MartinAKnight presented this article as a skeptical argument and assumed that the scientist mentioned in the story was a skeptic.
In one word: no.
It's as if Martin didn't even read the article.
Again: no.
... the scientist ... clearly stated other possibilities for the anomaly and then drew the reasonable conclusion that the models are not discredited because of this new information.
Finally, something I can come to grips with.
My problem is that the models used by Anthropogenic Global Warming devotees to predict the sky falling on our heads are never discredited.
No matter how much their models differ from reality in their predictions, no matter how unreliable the algorithms are, no matter the climatic record from history, etc. the models are never ever wrong.
Which is the entire point of this blog.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is now a theory that is unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable means it is increasingly being taken out of the realm of science and now into faith.
"Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn’t necessarily mean that the models are wrong."
Are you saying that this means the models are right? Because if you aren't then we have a situation where the only reason we have to believe the models is because Bromwich says they could conceivably by right. That is less than a good reason to take any action.
The article spells out the other reasons to believe that his new data does not discredit the models.
Takes a buckeye to figure it out.
“They chose dishonor. They will have war.” - Winston Churchill
To paraphrase Michael Crichton, the science of Global Warming will never see any progress as long as fear is the principle force that's driving the science. As it is now, fearful people just keep repeating previous fearful conclusions about the cause of warming, while neglecting to improve the experiments, and the data. There's plenty of room for improvement there, but many have stopped rethinking the theory, for fear of muddying the "green" argument. Of course, good scientists should only fall in love with the process, and not the conclusions, but it hasn't worked that way here. In the case of Global Warming, green elites in science love those conclusions that get them the love of other green elites. "It's Man's fault."
the Global Warming naysayers would be
we know that CO2 concentration are at 380ppm and climbing rapidly.
we have detailed records from ice cores that 280 ppm seems to be the historical maximum for the past 1/2 million years or so.
it seems clear that we are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than the earth's bio system can absorb.
we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
so is it really prudent to continue to dump INCREASING amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere?
In turning the argument back on on you, if we don't have good models of global warming and the effect of CO2, how do we know it is safe to increase CO2 levels to 500 or 600 ppm or more?
"...to 500 or 600 ppm or more?"
Simple answer: We don't know that at all and no one claims we do. We also don't know that it isn't.
Right now we're spending all out time and effort on convincing each other that the Revealed Church of Anthorpogenic Global Warming in the one true religion and we shall have no other climate views before us.
What we don't know about the mechanics of climate is stunning. What we do know is insignificant.
John
----------
Liberals: Alchemists who have mastered the ability to transmute Lead into a denser form of Lead
if I recall, one of the things we just couldn't take a chance on was a mushroom cloud over New York, so we invaded Iraq... you know, just in case.
So should we really take the chance that 500 or 600 ppm of CO2 isn't dangerous? If you look at what the scientists are predicting, we're basically gonna lose most of Florida and most other coastal areas. Sounds like we're making a huge gamble that they're wrong.
this bit of illogic farther? There is no gamble involved concerneing models. Models do not and cannot predict. No scientist, drug free, would ever claim such nonsense. We have trouble predicting things we really understand. Like aerodynamic performance. That's the reason we use wind tunnels and test pilots.
Bac to your analogy, I'd have thought any lefty would say that absent definitive proof we should not act. Are you saying that reordering out economy based on a dubious model is okay but whacking a third world dictator based on "peer reviewed" data is wrong?
reordering our economy based on a dubious model is okay but whacking a third world dictator based on "peer reviewed" data is wrong?
peer reviewed data! Perfectly put! In their own language!
That's a piece of ammo to keep dry for future battles.
Fides non in bonus intentions , tamen in bonus factum
For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.
Because we don't act based on the size of the gamble - even assuming that we're 'gonna lost most of Florida'.
How about if I predict (I'm not a scientist, but I am an engineer so I too have a title) that aliens are going to show up and cook us and eat us? And they're going to start with the poor and the women and children. And the only way to prevent this for the the government to give me $10 billion. What, that doesn't make any sense to you? But what about the size of the gamble? Everyone could die and you're not willing to head off the problem.
Please.
Fortuna Favet Fortibus
ignoring the point that most (if not all of the peer reviewed) data and the general consensus of the scientific community agrees that global warming is occurring and that the most likely cause is human made CO2.
On the other hand, I don't know of any peer reviewed articles that predict that we are going to be eaten by aliens, but then the subject exobiology and it potential to consume the earth isn't an area where I spend a great deal of time reviewing the current literature. Maybe you'd be a more successful engineer if you watch less Star Trek and spent more time studying Laplace Transforms. Just sayin'.
And to directly contradict you, it makes absolute sense to include the size of the gamble when determining the best course of action. It's called risk management, btw, maybe you should read up on it, since as an engineer, you'll be expected to know all about it if you ever want to move into management.
Then we need to spend more on asteroid abatement. Seeing as the risk is greater and there is literally no argument that it has happened and will happen.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
risk management.
The most important thing to do is set up a monitoring system so we know when we are going to be hit with enough time to do something about it. There is still a very small chance of getting hit in 2036, you know.
Or being rhetorical. Tunguska was almost certainly a cometary impact. The only thing that prevented it from being a tragedy of enormous scope is that it hit in an unpopulated area.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The UN is already on it:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=...
I read it. I consider it. It hasn't yet convinced me. Especially since there are plenty of other articles that contradict it. The status of being peer reviewed is dubious at best. Group think in universities is not convincing by itself.
Sure it makes sense to consider the size of the gamble, I never said otherwise - but I was trying to point out that right now that is all you have. The so called peer reviewed articles have plenty of dissension. The computer models are far from accurate. So you have the size of the gamble. That's it. And that's not enough. All your attempts at sarcasm don't change that.
Fortuna Favet Fortibus
I am keeping a Very close eye on it. Especially that key word there: "Consensus"
Hello! It's science! You can't Have "consensus" in science!
You either have a hypothesis that can't be proven or you have a working theory that Has been proven.
There is no "Consensus". There is Fact or Fiction. Period.
Until the "consensus" goes away and is replaced by Fact supported by the scientific method (rather than "fact" supported by "evidence" upheld by conjecture), then you will face Powerful and determined opposition to fixing your Hypothetical Problem.
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.
"...we're basically gonna lose most of Florida and most other coastal areas"
I cannot fathom why it never occured to me before. It all makes perfect sense to me now: Boston, NYC, LA, San Fran, San Diego, Seattle, Florida, Baltimore... **
After seeing what Katrina did to the Louisiana Voting machine, the Left is terrified - GW would change voting patterns for generations. The left would lose their hold on key states and The GOP would get all the credit (again) for addressing a threat to the U.S.
GW is a huge save the Blue vote effort!
**(Of course, some Red State areas will be affected too, but by and large these folks are known to move to high ground when the waters rise (ala Mississippi and Alabama), so most will survive.)
Sorry, couldn't help it. back to your regularly scheduled rants.
You don't get to turn the argument around. Our industrial economy is basically being driven by burning things and, yes, that produces CO2. This same economy has produced advances that allow billions of people to live at a higher standard of living then has ever been possible in mankind's history. More food, better housing, longer lifespans, and a better quality of life.
If you come along and hypothesize that a system that allows more people to live better is dangerous and must be changed, then the burden of proof is on you. Because you don't get a free ride. You don't ban DDT without millions of people dying of malaria and you don't dislocate an industrial economy without the same disasterous consequences.
So you have to convince us that the danger is real and then you had better come up with some real world (ie not Kyoto) solutions. Forgive us we if don't take someone like Al Gore on faith alone. And forgive us if we don't believe the computer models when they are consistently shown to be wrong.
Prove that the world is warming. Prove that we are the cause. Prove that warming is dangerous (This is the one seldom addressed. Suppose that all that ice melting which adds moisture to the air actually benefits the earth through longer growing seasons with more arable land?). Then lets see what needs to be done to fix it.
Fortuna Favet Fortibus
"Forgive us we if don't take someone like Al Gore on faith alone. And forgive us if we don't believe the computer models when they are consistently shown to be wrong."
I know you want proof that global warming is a threat, but you yourself are making some rather baseless claims in an effort to throw thousands of scientists' work out the window. It's not that easy. How are the models wrong, and according to what study?
You want proof? The IPCC report summary that has just come out explains the current state of climate science. Our proof is in 2500+ scientists' work. Now, the ball's in your court. You show how the overwhelming majority of scientists are wrong.
The models are wrong because the data doesn't match the models.
There must therefor be a flaw in the models and the models need to be adjusted.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
"the data doesn't match the models" doesn't tell me anything. This science is constantly improving, due to advances in technology, more research, and more available data, among other things. It makes a big difference whether you're talking about data from 1990 or data from 2006. Could you provide some scientific study that has proven this or at least reference what specific data and models you say don't match?
I would think if it were as simple as "the data doesn't match the models", there wouldn't be a majority of scientists still supporting them. That would be a mighty big conspiracy, wouldn't it?
The data (TEMPERATURE DATA, yes the ACUTAL temperatures recorded) that was measured in the Antarctic did not match the predictions produced by the models. Therefor the models are wrong. Is that so difficult to understand? Do you really need a multimillion dollar scientific study to figure out that if the data doesn't match the model, the model must be wrong?
I'm not arguing WHY it's wrong, only that it is wrong. It may truely be ozone depletion that is causing the poles to be cooler than predicted (though I'm a bit skeptical of that argument since ozone reduces the radiation that reaches the surface of the earth and less ozone should mean more surface warming). It may be that there is some other action at work that prevented the predicted warming from occuring. It may be that the whole theory is just hooey. I don't know. What I do know is that the model is wrong.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
The argument on Ozone is the atmosphere acts like a giant highpass filter. High frequency radiation comes through the atmosphere hits the ground and is turned to heat and then the heat is blocked radiating to space.
The argument ignores that convection not radiation is the primary means of heat transfer in the atmosphere. Second that major parts of the high frequency radiation are reflected back as high frequency radiation. (Esp in antartica).
The short of it is the models aren't descriptive.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
How do you know what the CO2 concentrations are?
From what I've been able to uncover we've only had instrumental CO2 readings for about 50 years. Prior to that its all ice core data. And it also seems that there is only one place that reads atmospheric C02 levels and that is Mauna Loa Observatory. If you look at the graph below, you can see a sudden uptick in C02 concentrations when the instrumental data is added. (Mauna Loa is the black line.)
You can find more detailed information about the graph here.
But do you think that perhaps the sudden uptick in CO2 concentrations is due to the fact that we're measuring CO2 concentrations on top of a valcanoe!
Maybe I'm being naive; maybe there's something I'm missing or maybe we're measuring sea level with the stick that Gilligan is using to set his lobster traps!
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
of atmospheric CO2 measurements. I have a 1919 chemistry textbook which gives the concentration of most gases in the air (0.03% CO2). But with the rise of greenhouse concerns, in the mid '70s various networks of observatories were linked and standardised. You can see one network of ten observatories here. Typically they are on an oceanic island, to avoid land-based sources. There have also been a huge number of measurements from balloons and aircraft.
That measurement is consistent with zero change. At least to the number of significant figures you have presented.
I am not saying thats the case. I am saying it should make you think.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
cast any doubt. It was already well understood that by just taking measurements in a land environment, concentrations could vary, and no more than one significant figure was quoted.
There is another very good NOAA site here. You can bring up any of many dozens of sites around the world, and see their history of CO2 readings.
You are of course once again talking about mating up multiple measurement regimes over a long stretch of time. I have no idea how the measurements were taken at the turn of the century. I would imagine liquefaction and some sort of fractional distilation perhaps backed by a mass calculation as a reality check. The current method is undoubtedly gas chromatography backed by mass spectrometry. So you have at least two measurement regimes in that graph where the technique is fundamentally different. Second in the later portions of the graph you have a changing set of measurement points.
Please note I am not saying the measurement are wrong just certainly worthy of question. Especially seeing as surly postgrads are usually dragooned into doing the scut work.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Filled a vessel with an atmospheric sample of known volume and barium Hydroxide of known weight and weighed the Hydroxide after a given time, calculated the difference and used that to derive the CO2 in the sample ?
Seeing as that made it to a textbook, lets agree that was the or at least a standard method. Where would you place the sensitivity on that experiment ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
They would have bubbled it through the hydroxide solution, filtered and weighed the precipitate. Standard quantitative analysis for the time, with at least 99% accuracy.
But I'm not sure what the point of worrying this figure is. The analysis was good enough to show that CO2 in the air in a populated environment varied, and that was the limiting factor in defining a single figure. Pre-1970, there was no pressing reason to chase this further. Since then, we have very comprehensive figures, and ice-core measurements which go back much further, and seem to provide continuity with present data.
Well first, the technique is pretty much as I described. Sorry if this is driving you into contradicting for contradictions sake. I'd also take that 99% accuracy with a grain of salt if it was that accurate or more there would have been more than one significant figure.
Second, what we are talking about is a very long term experiment with a loosely defined quantity being measured, using a variety of techniques both in measurement and sampling.
What we are talking about is using measurements to validate what are at best very incomplete models of the climate. We are also talking about temperature differentials that are little better than noise and are swamped by daily, seasonal, and yearly variation. How the measurements are done and what the error bars is vital.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I know it was neither of the current techniques as they hadn't been invented.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I have a 1959 copy of Encyclopedia Britannica. In the "Air" entry, I found this:
During the first 50 years of the 20th century the average concentration of carbon dioxide in the air increased about 12% (from 0.029% in 1909 to 0.033% in 1950). It is continuing to increase by about 30% per century.
---
Elaborate calculations have indicated that the increased average concentration of carbon dioxide raised the average temperature of the earth 1.1C in the first half of the 20th century. If these calculations are correct the effect of changes in carbon dioxide concentration can be very great. he calculations indicate further that the burning of all fossil fuel on the earth (in about 1000 years if the present rate of consumption should be maintained) will raise the average temperature of the Earth 7C to 14C (13F to 25F). If this estimate is correct, the climate of most of the earth will have become tropical and semitropical by the end of that period.
That predates computer modelling, funding issues, satellites...
If you reconcile with the rest of the projections. It is one more alarmist data point. I have a first ed Britanica around here some place (reproduction not actual).If I find it I will see if they say anything.
P.S. why is it still the encyclopedia Britanica when it is published by a Swiss company ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
one proposing to double or triple the CO2 levels. Why shouldn't you have to prove what your doing is safe?
And I don't know about you, but do you really think this is going to be good for the economy of Florida?
Think dykes. Lots of dykes. Thousands of miles of dykes along every coastline and estuary. Big dykes too - dozens of feet high. It could be done, I'm sure, but it would cost a fortune (how many billions?). And what would happen if your dyke sprang a leak or got hit by a hurricane? What do you do when an entire state gets wiped out New Orleans-style because of a hole in a dyke?
Of course, places like Bangladesh where they're not so big on dykes would be completely stuffed...
I've proven that an industrial economy benefits billions of people. You've proven that you have a lot of faith in University group think, dubious pbs predictions, computer models that when they produce verifiable data are verifiably wrong, and you worry more about what could go wrong then what is going right.
Fortuna Favet Fortibus
I DO have a solution that will benefit both sides.
I want clean cheap power with no dependence on unreliable foreign sources. You want clean cheap power that doesn't produce CO2 as a by product.
Let build nuke plants. No we don't actually have to build them ourselves, but we do have to work to make the permitting process possible. We have to work to fight the NIMBYs. We have to work to fight all the missinformation about nuclear power that is out there.
How about it? Will you actively support a solution to a problem that you perceive but I don't? I'll support it because it solves a different problem that I perceive. It just happens to have a nice side effect that it also solves YOU'RE problem.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
The IPCC in its most recent report makes it clear that
It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent except Antarctica (see Figure SPM-4).
It's not like the IPCC has been caught red-handed as some may imply.
What many here conveniently ignore is the fact that, as stated in the article cited in the original thread, the diminishing ozone layer in the antarctica produces cooling that offsets the low co2 produced in this region.
NASA reported last year that
While the ozone hole over Antarctica continues to open wide, the ozone layer around the rest of the planet seems to be on the mend.
Ozone depletion leads to colder temperatures.
Even Rudy Giuliani and John McCain accept Global Warming as a reality. It's time for some of us to catch up.
Or are you saying the last time we tried to regulate a climate problem we produced a lot side effects that we didn't know would happen ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
1934 our warmest year on record. Despite recent data readjustment.
Oh well its only two continents out of 7
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777