The webcast for Dr. Alley’s presentation is now up, so I recommend watching the video. It is concerning the role of CO2 on climate over geologic time.
As my own side note, Alley is one of my favorite scientists…he’s pretty much “the guy” when it comes to ice core work and has done a lot with paleoclimate (over the ice core record especially), abrupt climate change, glaciology, and sea level rise. He’s a very interesting character who always puts things in a nice perspective, and often humorous ways of teaching (e.g., his Johnny Cash geology lesson).
Climate Change 
I watched the presentation last night. Very good. His enthusiasm and style holds your attention indefinitely.
Hi,
great talk indeed… Nice overview of the paleo front – where things seem to be moving rapidly.
I watched last night and agree that he is an excellent speaker. I am sure none of his students falls asleep. 🙂
In my MET102 – Principles of World Climate (for non-majors) we spend much time on many of the concepts Dr. Alley spoke of. The book I use is Earth’s Climate: Past and Future by William F. Ruddiman. It is an excellent text for intro students and constantly reinforces the scientific method.
If any of you teach intro climate courses, this is one to check out.
Response– I’d also recommend having students watch this lecture for a class.– chris
Pingback: Die Klimakrise » Richard Alley über die wichtigste Klima-Stellschraube
That’s an interesting A/V – he certainly is a character. I see that Professor Alley, a lead author for the IPCC, is involved in those leaked UEA CRU files that have become known as the “Climategate” scandal. On 11th March 2006 Professor Alley sent an interesting E-mail (Note 1) to Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, et al. expressing his concern about the reaction of a committee of the USA National Research Council to proposed wording of IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 6 and associated political misinterpretations. QUOTE: My impression is that, for good reasons, the US NRC panel looking at the record of temperatures over the last millennium or two is not going to strongly endorse the ability of proxies to detect warming above the level of a millennium ago, and that a careful re-examination of the Chapter 6 wording and its representation in the TS and SPM would be wise. UNQUOTE.
This is not surprising, considering that three years later he is still concerned about the uncertainties surrounding global climate processes and drivers, which he acknowledges on several occasions in the A/V. One important point that he didn’t bother mentioning relates to the validity of the ice core re-constructions of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. In his presentation (at 12.15mins) he said that QUOTE: Our gold standard is the ice cores. … This works. If you take just the youngest samples .. it matches beautifully with the instrumental record .. UNQUOTE. What he didn’t mention is that in order to match up ice core re-constructions with direct atmospheric measurements, arbitrary adjustments of the age of the air in ice cores is necessary
As Professor Jawarowski (Note 2) says QUOTE: The basic assumption behind the CO2 glaciology is a tacit view that air inclusions in ice are a closed system, which permanently preserves the original chemical and isotopic composition in the gas, and thus that the inclusions are a suitable matrix for reliable reconstruction of the pre-industrial gases and ancient atmosphere. .. This assumption is in conflict with ample evidence from numerous earlier CO2 studies, indicating the opposite. .. It was never experimentally demonstrated that ice core records reliably represent the original atmospheric composition. .. There are four other arbitrary assumptions behind the CO2 glaciology. which were used to support the first assumption above:
1. No liquid phase occurs in the ice at a mean annual temperature of -24C or less (Berner et al. 1977, Friedli et al. 1986, Raynaud and Barnola 1985).
2. The entrapment of air in ice is a mechanical process with no differentiation of gas components (Oeschger et al. 1985).
3. The original atmospheric air composition in the gas is preserved indefinitely (Oeschger et al. 1985).
4. The age of gases in the air bubbles is much younger than the age of the ice in which they are entrapped (Oeschger et al. 1985), the More than a decade ago, it was demonstrated that these four basic assumptions are invalid, that the ice cores cannot be regarded as a closed system, and that low pre-industrial concentrations of CO2, and of other trace greenhouse gases, are an artifact, caused by more than 20 physical-chemical processes operating in situ in the polar snow and ice, and in the ice cores. ..
In this part of the core, taken from Siple, Antarctica, the ice was deposited in the year 1890, and theCO2 concentration in itwas 328 ppmv (Friedli et al. 1986,Neftel et al. 1985), and not the 290ppmv needed to prove the man-made warming hypothesis. The same CO2 concentration of 328 ppmv was measured in the air collected directly from the atmosphere at the Mauna Loa volcano, Hawaii, 83 years later in 1973 (Boden et al. 1990). So, it was shockingly clear that the pre- industrial level of CO2 was the same as in the second half of the 20th Century. To solve this “problem,” these researchers simply made an ad hoc assumption: The age of the gas recovered from 1 to 10 grams of ice was arbitrarily decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped! This was not supported by any experimental evidence, but only by assumtions which were in conflict with the facts … UNQUOTE.
“Climategate” has made it clear to us all that no pronouncements on global climates by anyone associated with the IPCC or the UEA CRU should be accepted on face value but must be carefully scrutinised for validity.
NOTES:
1) see http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=670&s=tag455
2) see http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agos(cep)tic
Response– Have you even read the papers you are criticizing, or are relying on Jaworowksi’s long-debunked nonsense about ice cores? Your references are not acceptable, and it’s clear you cannot support your conspiracies with academic sources. Further posts with arguments based on secondary sources and other long-refuted contrarian talking points and conspiracies are going to be deleted. This is getting a bit ridiculous, and it’s clear that you have no desire to read scholarly material, just websites that reinforce what your mind already made up– chris
Tut tut Chris, what’s your objection to open discussion? Don’t you want to even consider the sceptical point of view? You’re starting to sound just like Greeenpeace, who refuse point blank to debate the issue. You’ll remember being involved very briefly in debate on Australian Senator Fielding’s “Climate Change” blog. We are presently talking about the validity of those ice core re-constructions that Professor Alley considers are the “Gold Standard” for determining pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentrations. In the process of following up on this I came across a forum started in 2006 on which a rather “heated” exchange on the subject took place in March 2008 (Note 1). One of the comments provides a link to Professor Alley’s 2000 paper “Ice-core evidence of abrupt climate changes” (Note 2).
It is clear that he remains now as convinced as he was then that QUOTE: Ice cores are local paleothermometers .. UNQUOTE. He also seems to remain convinced that QUOTE: Because most gases reside in the atmosphere long enough to be well mixed globally, ice cores around the world record the same atmospheric composition in bubbles trapped at the same time UNQUOTE. He also says in that paper QUOTE: The trapped gas is thus a little younger than the ice in which it occurs; uncertainty in this gas age/ice age difference complicates some interpretations but still allows rather accurate dating in most cases UNQUOTE. Much of this conflicts with Professor Jaworowski’s opinion but I was not able to find anything in that AGU presentation that justified his apparent conviction on these matters (although he does acknowledge at least some degree of uncertainty). Perhaps you, or Scott, etc. can point me to any appropriate sections of the A/V.
Would you be kind enough to provide links to those papers/articles that caused you to form your opinion about QUOTE: Jaworowksi’s long-debunked nonsense about ice cores? UNQUOTE. I’ve been looking for ages for evidence that shows that there can be no preferential fractionation of the different atmospheric gases trapped within glacier and sheet ice for hundreds and thousands of years. The paper “Gases in ice cores” (Note 3) by Bender et. al. talks only about gravitational and thermal fractionation although in a 2006 update on his research (Note 4) he does say QUOTE: When gases are trapped in glacial ice, O2 is preferentially excluded .. O2 is excluded preferentially to N2 because O2 is the smaller molecule, and more easily escapes when bubbles close. The degree of exclusion is somehow related to surface insolation; .. The mediating mechanism is not known, but we can say that insolation influences some property of ice at the surface that, in turn, determines the extent to which O2 is excluded during closeoff. UNQUOTE. What I haven’t found discussed (other than by Professor Jaworowski) is any preferential changes to the CO2 concentration.
Any help regarding any of the possible mechanisms would be appreciated (I have the list of papers from UCSD – Note 5) so that I can arrive at an informed opinion, rather than merely accepting what one or the other side of the debate throws at me. As it says in “Ice cores, CO2 concentration, and climate” (Note 6) QUOTE: This order of events is not what one would expect from the enhanced greenhouse effect UNQUOTE. As we all know from “Climategate”, we cannot accept on face value anything that is presented by supporters of the IPCC.
Scott, I recommend that you balance what you feed to your students by providing then with as much of the material that rejects The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis as you do of supportive material. A good A/V to balance what Professor Alley says is an excellent A/V “The Cloud Mystery” (Note 7) by Henrik Svensmark, Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish Space Research Institute. According to Wikipedia (Note 8) QUOTE: Henrik Svensmark has produced compelling evidence that the temporary increase in global temperatures recorded prior to 1997 was caused chiefly by solar flare activity rather than CO2 emissions. UNQUOTE, which is completely opposite to Professor Alley’s opinion. I’m sure that you are all as eager as Dr. Jasper Kirkby is to have the results of the CERN CLOUD 09 experiment, which are expected to show that atmospheric CO2 concentration has an insignificant impact upon global climates..
I’m sure that you will all join with me in wishing Dr. Svensmark well after his heart problem in Copenhagen.
NOTES:
1) see http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/379605551/m/4111008432/p/15
2) see http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full.pdf
3) see http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8343.full.pdf
4) see http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/bender/lab/research_ice_cores.html
5) see http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/pubs.html
6) see http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html
7) see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA&feature=PlayList&p=71C9A6083E1F787F&index=1
8) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark
Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agos(cep)tic
PS: I just came across this 2009 paper “ (Note 1) on the subject, which says QUOTE: the diffusion of chemical traces in the ice matrix may not be negligible, at least locally, on a timescale of few years. These results could be important for the interpretation of ice-core paleoclimate records. UNQUOTE..
NOTES; 1) see http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/EGU2009-7239-2.pdf
An article (Note 1) presented at a 2005 Western States Coal Mine Methane Recovery and Use Workshop describing the technology used in the USA for treating coal-bed natural gas by removing N2, O2 and CO2 says that the molecular diameters are approximately CH4 = 3.8 angstroms, N2 = 3.6 angstroms, O2 = 3.5 angstroms and CO2 = 3.3 angstroms. This suggests to me that preferential fractionation takes place through the lattice of ice and after hundreds to thousands of years the concentrations of these substances will be significantly different to what they were in the atmosphere at the time snow was falling. It also appears to me that CO2 will more readily fractionate than any of the others.
Since so many highly regarded scientists accept the ice core re-constructions as being the “Gold Standard” for determining pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentrations I am obviously misunderstanding something here. Can any of you kind folk point me in the direction of a sound explanation of why this does not happen.
NOTES; 1) see http://www.moleculargate.com/nitrogen-rejection-N2-removal/Coal-Bed-Methane-Upgrading.html
Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agos(cep)tic
Whatever else he might be, Professor Alley certainly isn’t dull. He’s very entertaining (in small doses), so there may be at least one flaw in the paper “Why are modern scientists so dull?” (Note 1) brought to my attention by Roger Taguchi. I copy to you the “Summary” but please take a look at the full article as it may explain a few things with regard to the scientists involved in supporting the political approach of the UN’s IPCC.
QUOTE: Medical Hypotheses. Volume 72, Issue 3, Pages 237-243 Bruce G. Charlton ***
Summary
Question: why are so many leading modern scientists so dull and lacking in scientific ambition? Answer: because the science selection process ruthlessly weeds-out interesting and imaginative people. At each level in education, training and career progression there is a tendency to exclude smart and creative people by preferring Conscientious and Agreeable people. The progressive lengthening of scientific training and the reduced independence of career scientists have tended to deter vocational ‘revolutionary’ scientists in favour of industrious and socially adept individuals better suited to incremental ‘normal’ science. High general intelligence (IQ) is required for revolutionary science. But educational attainment depends on a combination of intelligence and the personality trait of Conscientiousness; and these attributes do not correlate closely. Therefore elite scientific institutions seeking potential revolutionary scientists need to use IQ tests as well as examination results to pick-out high IQ ‘under-achievers’. As well as high IQ, revolutionary science requires high creativity. Creativity is probably associated with moderately high levels of Eysenck’s personality trait of ‘Psychoticism’. Psychoticism combines qualities such as selfishness, independence from group norms, impulsivity and sensation-seeking; with a style of cognition that involves fluent, associative and rapid production of many ideas. But modern science selects for high Conscientiousness and high Agreeableness; therefore it enforces low Psychoticism and low creativity. Yet my counter-proposal to select elite revolutionary scientists on the basis of high IQ and moderately high Psychoticism may sound like a recipe for disaster, since resembles a formula for choosing gifted charlatans and confidence tricksters. A further vital ingredient is therefore necessary: devotion to the transcendental value of Truth. Elite revolutionary science should therefore be a place that welcomes brilliant, impulsive, inspired, antisocial oddballs – so long as they are also dedicated truth-seekers. UNQUOTE.
Scott (Mandia), as Roger (a fellow teacher) says QUOTE: I noticed over the last 3 or 4 decades that my brightest students, out of consideration for self-preservation and monetary success, have gone into medicine, computers, engineering, and law. Into climatology and environmental sciences, not so much UNQUOTE.
NOTES:
1) see http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-are-modern-scientists-so-dull.html
Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agos(cep)tic
PS: is no-one able to help me understand about that preferential fractionation thingey within those ice sheets and glaciers?
Happy and healthy 2010 to you all.
Pete R
Pete,
it looks like you have a theory which is worth investigating. It seems to me that, as you’ve explained to me you have a background in research as an engineer you have 2 options:
1) Investigate you theory properly, write it up as a genuine paper and submit it to peer review.
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES: If you can adequately support your theory and the peer-review process doesn’t show it to be invalid, you can cause all of the ice-core data to require re-examination and discredit a lot of the arguments you disagree with. If all goes well we may all find that there is a fatal flaw in the climate science so far, that it’s all just a natural cycle and we have nothing to fear. The peer-review process will also raise issues that you have not thought of and if you are genuine in seeking the truth, you will be happy to produce a stronger study.
POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES: The peer-review process may demonstrate that your argument is not as strong as you think and your conscience may prompt you to drop the argument.
2) Continue to argue it here and on Steve Fielding’s forum.
POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES: a) Some readers that don’t have a full scientific understanding of the subject or don’t have time to investigate your claims may be won over to your thinking, not realising that you are challenging an enormous amount of well established science with an unsupported theory. b) You may wear down or infuriate Chris or other posters on Fielding’s blog so that they lose focus, are abusive in some way that allows you to attack their character or so that Chris blocks you from his site, enabling you to boast (albeit dishonestly) that you have been censored. c) You will feel superior
POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES: It depends on who you are and what your cause really is. If you genuinely want to know the truth, the disadvantage is that you will just be muddying the waters and keeping yourself in the dark. You will miss out on your chance to actually make a difference if there really is something to your theory and instead will exchange that opportunity for a dishonest and destructive one.
I just want to make it clear that I have no desire in censoring views which are necessarily “against the consensus.” I will however end up censoring nonsense which is unsupported by quality documents. I would do the same for an extremist on the other end of the spectrum (e.g., someone who repeatedly kept spamming about how the world is going to end tomorrow and Antarctica is all going to melt in 10 years). Unfortunately, Pete is giving the illusion that he has an interest in being “open-minded” and learning new stuff, but the quality of “information” that he takes seriously (Roger, Jaworowski) and other junk which is not at all threatening to the scientific community is something to be really be concerned about, and I’m not sure I have the appropriate answer in how to deal with it. This stuff is really at the same level as the e-mail that Alley showed off at the AGU conference claiming him to be dishonest because he admits “CO2 lags temperature,” and while on one hand you do not want to give time to such garbage and create the illusion that it should be taken seriously, I also agree that as Alley puts it, we need to somehow go from that kind of stuff to a proper scientific understanding.
That said, there are online rebuttals to stuff Jaworowski has published, including here, and from a much more authoritative source, Hans Oeschger himself, here. In line with what I have said, he writes “It is with great hesitation that I write in reply to the paper by JAWOROWSKI, this paper deserves little attention. But unfortunately, he has succeded in publishing similar articles in journaIs and thus has induced considerable confusion regarding the reconstruction of ancient atmospheric compositions by the analysis of air occluded in polar ice of known age.”
This confusion is problematic. People commenting on other posts of mine are still convinced that Gerlich and Tsceuschner has disproved the existence of a greenhouse effect. I appreciate the patience of those who have responded consistently to these sorts of arguments, as well as websites which have detailed rebuttals to long lists of common claims (such as at SkepticalScience), but I’m not sure I am the right person to keep pushing this stuff with and expect long and detailed “rebuttals” to be provided.
Chris, i tried posting a response but it wasn’t accepted. Do you have restrictions on length of comment of number/type of links?
Phil, as you say in your comment on 1st Jan @ 6:59 p.m. I QUOTE: have a background in research as an engineer UNQUOTE and having experienced peer review before publication in a learned journal I am aware of the options open to me, but thanks for putting in the effort. In theory the peer review process is intended to help us all QUOTE: in seeking the truth .. to produce a stronger study UNQUOTE. Unfortunately, as “Climategate” has demonstrated, this is not always the manner in which peer review works in the real world.
Your point 2) is made from a position of ignorance – about my motives. You seem to be making incorrect assumptions about those.
Chris, ref. your comment on 1st Jan @ 10:44 p.m. I appreciate your fair-minded approach to debate. We disagree about the validity of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis but that is the very reason for the debate, not only between people on this forum but even between the highly qualified and experienced scientists themselves. One thing to be wary of is to assume that you have superior knowledge and understanding when what you consider to be “nonsense”, “junk” or “garbage” may in fact be getting close to the truth. There are plenty examples of the opinion of the (superior?) majority being totally incorrect and ridicule thrown at enlightened individuals being eventually thrown back into the face of consensus. As I understand it, even Einstein made mistakes, even in his “quality documents” but he recognised his own fallibility (Note 1) QUOTE: “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” UNQUOTE. Humility is a much more attractive characteristic than arrogance. I’m sure that there are other things about which you could validly say QUOTE: I’m not sure I have the appropriate answer .. UNQUOTE, including things regarding an understanding of global climate processes and drivers. I wholeheartedly agree with you that QUOTE: .. we need to somehow go from that kind of stuff to a proper scientific understanding. UNQUOTE. You, like Phil, seem to be making incorrect assumptions about me.
Thanks for the links (am I correct in thinking that you picked them up from your favourite blog – Realclimate – Note 2) to those QUOTE: .. online rebuttals to stuff Jaworowski has published UNQUOTE. I found these back in 2008 shortly after reading Jaworowski’s paper. I was not impressed by Jim Easter who was guilty of precisely what he accused Jaworowski of when saying QUOTE: Those accusations are unsupported by any evidence, direct or indirect. UNQUOTE. He instead has to resort to such things as QUOTE: .. published by Lyndon Larouche. Need I say more? UNQUOTE. I totally disagree with Tim Lambert when he said (Note 3) QUOTE: Now Jim Easter has written a masterful post, detailing twenty-two false or misleading statements made by Jaworowski. Go and read, it’s beautiful work. UNQUOTE.
He refers to the paper “Holocene carbon-cycle dynamics based on CO2 trapped in ice at Taylor Dome, Antarctica” by Indermuehle et al (Note 4). This discusses the fractionation of CO2 within ice due to the formation of clathrate and to that occurring during extraction but makes no reference to other fractionation mechanisms.
It should be noted that Easter‘s comments are directed at Jaworowski’s “Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2” March 19, 2004.
BTW, did you read those interesting exchanges between Easter, “climate skeptic?”, John Mashey, etc? Easter pontificates about the peer reviewed paper “On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?” by Khilyuk and Chilingar. In so doing he relies upon calculations of differences between human and natural CO2 fluxes presented individually to fractions of a GT/yr and concludes QUOTE: If we add up the human and natural components of the carbon cycle, we find that sources add up to 217.1 gigatons of carbon (GtC) annually, and that sinks add up to 213.8 GtC. The annual difference of 3.3 GtC is what causes the steady increase in atmospheric CO2. UNQUOTE. He doesn’t say where those figures come from and also fails to mention is that individual fluxes are estimates, with an error of up to 20%, as acknowledged in the IPCC AR4 Fig 7.3. I mentioned this on your “Interactive Carbon Cycle” blog (Note 3) in my comment of 1st January @ 11:31 am.
I’m inclined to agree with Dana, who said on June 9th, 2007 at 3:09 p.m. QUOTE: My advice would be to step back a few paces and do a really objective analysis of the issue and get away from the agenda-driven rhetoric. If the climate science community discovers they’ve erred and correct the record themselves it would be to their long-term benefit. OR they could ride the sinking ship down with Captain Algore. UNQUOTE
Oeschger’s 1995 criticism of Jaworowski’s 1994 paper appears to me to have been simply defending his own faith in the ice core re-constructions insteadof validating them. The paper that I was referring to was in 2007 and Oeschger wasn’t around then to comment. I refer you to “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time” (Note 5) Page 41 “The Truth About Ice Cores” final paragraph. If anyone is able to give me links to the papers mentioned there then I’d appreciate it.
I agree that with regard to the validity of The Hypothesis QUOTE: This confusion is problematic UNQUOTE and put this down to the fact that we have such a poor understanding of climate processes and drivers.
If you are unable to help me in my research into the preferential fractionation of CO2 in ice then perhaps you’d like to comment how that wonderfully robust peer review process that you enthuse about resulted in that paper “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” by Professor Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner being published. (Don’t bother providing a link to Realclmate as I’m aware of that criticism of the 2007 version and of Gerlich’s response to it).
May I just mention that I started researching this issue on May 2008 after reading a review of Mark Lynas’s February 2007 booklet “Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet” published Fourth Estate (HarperCollins) – probably in their “Science Fiction” category. Thinking at the time that it was a genuine attempt to present the science to lay people it left me very concerned about the future for my children and grandchildren so I started researching. I found that Lynas had made deliberate distortions and omissions in order to produce his environmentalist propaganda, which I have challenged him about on several of his blogs. He has never responded. In September that year I expressed my concerns about the validity of those ice core re-constructions in my article “POLITICIZATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE & CO2” (Note 6) and the more I researched the more sceptical I have become. This is not because I have some vested interest in rejecting The Hypothesis but because I become less and less convinced about the science and more and more convinced that the whole scare is politically driven.
It looks as though the problem that I had previously with my comment was the NOTES. I’ve removed the http:// from each link to see if that works.
NOTES:
1) see thinkexist.com/quotations/humility/
2) see http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Zbignew_Jaworowski
3) see scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/05/jaworowski.php
4) see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylor/indermuehle99nat.pdf
5) http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
6) see chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/interactive-carbon-cycle-model/#comment-1479
?) see nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1
Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agos(cep)tic
realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Zbignew_Jaworowski
Now I’ll try in two groups.
NOTES:
1) see http://thinkexist.com/quotations/humility/
2) see http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Zbignew_Jaworowski
3) see http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/05/jaworowski.php
4) see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/taylor/indermuehle99nat.pdf
5) http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
6) see https://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/interactive-carbon-cycle-model/#comment-1479
7) see http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1
Any ideas? Cold it have been that ? instead of a 7 for Note 7??
Sorry about the mix-up. In my commentof 9:43 am that second “Note 3” should read “Note 6” and the “Note 6” should read “Note 7”.
Regards, Pete R
IMO; Richard Alley is a great speaker.
He reminds me of Robin Williams.
Here are my notes on his Climate History talk:
CO2 is not the only thing that matters to the Climate.
Does not tell us much about regional climates.
Does not tell us much about ENSO.
These are interesting times for Climate Scientiest.
Lots of people trying to learn the science.
Easy to distort and some are trying to do just that.
Logical fallicies are being used to make false accusations.
Looking over history of earth, nothing makes sense without CO2.
Faint Young Sun “Paradox” only makes sense with CO2.
Vulcano’s emit CO2 without regard to temperature.
However, rock weathering is influenced by temperature.
Low temps, reduce weathering and allow CO2 to buildup.
High temps accelerate weathering and reduce CO2.
This is a long term thermostat for the earth.
Operates on time scales of half million years.
Snowball Earth only makes sense with CO2.
Low level glaciers found closer to tropics when CO2 is low.
Only way to break up snowball is with high levels of CO2.
Geologic evidence of high CO2 found on top of low level tropical glaciers.
CO2 Paleobarometers
Ice cores are best direct record of atmospheric CO2.
Match instrumented records very well.
CO2 remains trapped in ice layer.
Does not move with melt water.
Oldest good ice core is 800,000 years.
Has been verified correct to 450,000 years.
CO2 records beyond 800,000 years depend on indirect measurements.
Indirect measurements need to be checked carefully.
C12:C13 ratios in alkenones for plants
B11:Ca in shells from CO2 influence on ocean acid.
Leaf Stomata
CO2 is raised by:
Volcanos
Weathering rates
Fossil Fuel Burial
Ocean Oxygenation & Fertilization
400 million history of CO2 is being prepared.
Sea Level glaciers appears linked to low CO2 levels.
Nothing else makes sense.
Great Dying of 250 million years ago.. End Permian
95% of species died
Great Volcanism: Siberian Traps
Warm temperatures from CO2, reduced O2 solubility in oceans.
Allowed sulfer bacteria to thrive in ocean; killing O2 organisms.
Saurian Sauna
Mid Cretaceous was stinking hot.
No polar ice at sea levels.
Models with high sea level, low albedo and
altered currents can not explain warmth.
Need CO2 to fully explain the heat: Donnadieu 2006.
Tropical oceans 37C; CO2 1300 ppm
About same level we could get from buring all fossil fuels.
Oceans acidify and kills off sea life
Worth thinking about for our future.
Ordovician Glaciation: Looks to be from falling CO2 levels
CO2 did not kill the Dinosaurs; a meterotite did.
Paleocene Eocene thermal maximum.
May have started from methane that went to CO2.
World was already warmer, and then got even warmer.
Oceans acidify; lots of distruption to living beings.
Rises/Falls very fast.
Too fast to be explained by drifting continents.
Recovers just like carbon models.
Miocene Warmth
Good science originally found CO2 levels to low to explain.
Recent science has found higher levels of CO2.
Need to reconcile differance.
May explain the warming.
Ice Ages
We know CO2 did not cause the cycles
Ice ages are paced by orbital shifts.
So, it should not be surprising that CO2 lags.
However, some people have difficulty with this.
Consider credit cards.
Interest lags debt.
So, by the same logic one might argue that interest does not contribute to debt.
However, over time interest still contributes to debt.
Like duh!
We still see other factors in the climate.
Records show that solar changes do contribute.
No good long term paleo record for the sun.
Solar Physicist say sun has been friendly.
Volcanos have short term impact.
Cosmic rays are being studied, but there are reason to believe it is minor.
Be10 records indicate cosmic ray flux.
40,000 years ago, magnetic field zeroed out.
Huge Cosmic rays peak at the time: Laschamp
Climate ignored the cosmic ray spike.
See Musch Ler eta l 2005 QSR
Space dust.
Does not seem to have changed over time
and there is not much of it.
Climate Sensitivity to CO2.
Models seem to do okay.
From ice ages sensitivity is probably a bit higher.
Phanerozoic
Royer March 2007 Nature
Checked out 400 million years of history
CO2 sensitivity of 2.8C makes most sense.
Paleo climate says extremes of sensitity unlikely
If higher CO2 warms, Earths climate history makes sense.
If higher CO2 does not warm, then not much makes sense.
CO2 can be forcing or feedback.
CO2 molecules do not remember how they got into atmosphere.
Paleoclimate data show about 3C/CO2 doubling.
Perhaps somewhat higher over centuries or millennia especially in polar regions.
Story is still not done.
CO2 is just the start, not the end.
Lots of good work still to be done.
Lots of regional factors that don’t have global impact.
Paleo records still need to be improved.
However, we appear to be nearing the ability to make very high
confidence statements.
CO2 remains most important controller of climate.
Any errors are all mine!
Andrew, but not one of your claims backed up with evidence. Please let us all in on your secret sources.
Pete;
There are no secrets and plenty of evidence.
Try the following for starters:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
I would still appreciate any help that you can give me in my research into the fractionation of air (particularly CO2) in ice.
Andrew, in your comment of 3rd January at 12.06 about “CO2 Paleobarometers” you gave the impression that you are convinced of the validity of those ice core re-constructions so please would you provide a link to the evidence that supports your confidence in them. Bender et al. said in their 1997 paper “Gases in Ice Cores” (Note 1) QUOTE: .. Differential diffusivity is a first-order effect that must be taken into account when interpreting data on the concentration and isotopic composition of gases in firn air and ice cores (7) … UNQUOTE but don’t detail how this is done. The paper by Battle et el. referenced by Bender (and by the IPCC in AR4 WG1) requires the payment of a fee, which I’m not prepared to pay.
Let’s take a short break from those horrendously complex and poorly understood climate processes and drivers and look briefly at the much simpler political propaganda relevant to that “Biggest Control Knob” about which some scientists (like Richard Alley) and most politicians rave.
You possibly haven’t heard of UK politician Sammy Wilson or of “maverick weather forecaster” (Note 2) Piers Corbyn, who claims that the forecasts of his Weather Action consultancy are far more reliable than those of the UK’s Met. Office. Corbyn’s forecasts are QUOTE: based on what is called “The Solar Weather Technique.” UNQUOTE. Today’s Weatheraction page (Note 3) headlines their International Conference at Imperial College London on 28th October 2009 and gives a link (Note 4) to an excellent presentation given by Sammy Wilson. Back in Jan/Feb last year Sammy Wilson, who was at that time Environment Minister in Northern Ireland, had the courage to speak out against the UK Government’s human-made global climate change propaganda campaign and was hauled before the Environment Committee for a ticking off. He was eventually moved from Environment to Finance.
One of the comments that he makes relates to this blog. Sammy Wilson refers to this claimed QUOTE: they say .. we’ve got a big knob called CO2 that we can turn like the temperature gauge on a cooker and turn the world’s temperature up and down .. UNQUOTE. In a very humorous way Sammy Wilson touches on several of the hypocrisies that members of political and environmental organisations demonstrate repeatedly. (examples of these are the UN’s gigantic CO2-vomiting extravaganza in Copenhagen, COP15 and the refusal of organisations and individuals like Greenpeace, Al Gore, the UK’s Forum for the Future, Mark Lynas and Jonathan Porritt to debate with sceptics). Sammy Wilson also talks about the words of a UK Met Office representative who acknowledged that they use the same computers for forecasting weather as they use for climate. On 30th April they forecast (Note 5) that QUOTE: Summer temperatures across the UK are likely to be warmer than average and rainfall near or below average for the three months of summer. UNQUOTE and as a result was re-named the Wet Office. On 23rd July they forecast (Note 6) QUOTE: .. Winter 2009/10 is likely to be milder than last year for the UK .. UNQUOTE and look what we are having!!. (See some of the comments about this forecast at the time it was made – Note 7).
Have a look and listen –anyone with an open mind should enjoy it. It is so re-assuring for sceptics to hear a politician having the courage to challenge the UN’s political propaganda supporting The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis. Let’s hope that more and more will “come out”, although it’s unlikely, since they do want those environmentalist votes.
The UK’s Wet Office forecasts are discussed in the Daily Telegraph by Christopher Brooker (Note 8), who has written a very interesting book that I received as a Xmas present. “The Real Global Warming Disaster” poses the question on the front cover “Is the obsession with ‘climate change’ turning out to be the most costly scientific blunder in history”? It has the following quotations on the back cover:
– “Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled” – in 1992 by politician Al Gore (famous for those “inconvenient misrepresentations” which helped to win him his Nobel Prize – for politics),
– “The disaster is not set to happen in some science fiction future many years ahead, but in our lifetime” – in 2006 by politician Tony Blair (famous for those “weapons of mass destruction” and other distortions,
– “The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear” in 2008 by politician Barack Obama (famous for being the first “African American” US president but nothing else),
– “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer predictions combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age” in 2007 by Professor Richard Lindzen (famous for his scientific expertise in meteorology).
Between those covers is an excellent analysis of the facts behind the “significant human-made global climate change” political scam. Well worth reading if you have an open mind.
NOTES:
1) see http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8343.long
2) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn
3) see http://www.weatheraction.com/
4) see http://www.kane-tv.com/wa/sammywilson.html
5) see http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090430.html
6) see http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/science/creating/monthsahead/seasonal/2009/winter.html
7) see http://theweatheroutlook.com/twocommunity/forums/t/27515.aspx
8) see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6257987/What-makes-Met-Office-long-term-forecasts-so-wrong.html
Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agos(cep)tic
Pete Ridley said
December 29, 2009 @ 10:36 am
In the process of following up on this I came across a forum started in 2006 on which a rather “heated” exchange on the subject took place in March 2008 (Note 1). One of the comments provides a link to Professor Alley’s 2000 paper “Ice-core evidence of abrupt climate changes” (Note 2).
As one of the participants in this heated exchange I have to say that sourceing this forum for links to real research is not accessing the real science. the pôster that provided this link was one in complete denial (as one who read the entire thread could see) and was so entrapted by his belief to ignore the phyics of the real world.
For one his car got the same mpg at 80 mpg as it did at 50. One other deleated his posts as soon as the science showed him wrong in his assumptions.
Such acts are not unusal in the dinealsphere but to link to a laymans forum to show the science involved is a new one for me anyway
sorry I didn’t edit
It should read : For one his car got the same mpg at 80 mph as it did at 50.
Pete Ridley: If you listen to Richard Alley’s talk, you’ll find the answers to your questions:
Namely, if Jaworowski was right (and he’s not, he’s a standard kook of the type present in every field of science – and I’ve interacted with them in physics and chemistry settings, they all present similar symptoms of illogic, and it is a useful talent to be able to distinguish their “nonsense”, “junk” or “garbage” from actual useful information), then how would one explain that
a) Different ice cores show the same patterns and magnitudes of CO2, CH4, and N2O concentrations even though the snow accumulation rates at these different sites is different, and indeed differs over time at a single site
b) multiple different paleo-record approaches yield the same patterns (eg, B:Ca ratios as in the Tripati paper)
c) it all matches quite nicely with the theories and carbon cycle models that also work for the directly observed record
Pretty much, in the climate field, anyone who can’t recognize that the anthropogenic nature of recent increases in CO2, and the accuracy of the ice core record for gas concentrations, despite looking at the literature, is in my opinion pretty clearly demonstrating irrationality.
-Marcus
ps. In addition to Oeschger (1995), Gulluk et al. (JGR, 1998) and Raynaud et al. (Science, 1993) pretty firmly rebutted Jaworowski’s theories. And no, there are no rebuttals specifically to his 2007 paper in EIR Science because those of us who do research in the field have no time to go around using the pooper-scooper in every Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Energy and Fuels, or EIR Science journal where people who are _insane_ can somehow find an editor willing to publish their crazy rantings…
Marcus makes an excellent point (11 Jan 2010), namely, one finds very similar CO2 records from different ice cores in Antarctica despite different (a) locations, (b) elevations (atmospheric pressure), and (c) snow accumulation rates. This internal consistency despite variability in the parameters that could influence the integrity of the CO2 records adds confidence to their reliability.
Moreover, the gas fractionation that occurs during bubble close-off is extremely small, barely measurable with the most sophisticated analytical instruments. The fractionation is well documented and uncontroversial, but I’m not aware of any evidence that it could explain changes in CO2 or any other gas as large as those seen in ice cores (tens of percent). There may be evidence that I’m not aware of, but gas fractionation at the part per thousand range won’t explain the 40 (approx) percent rise in CO2 at the end of an ice age.
Finally, the scientific community is careful about checking the quality of the ice core data, and data that can be demonstrated to be compromised are rejected. That’s what happened to the CO2 data from the Greenland ice cores. There is enough calcium carbonate dust in Greenland ice that it reacts with sulfuric (I think) acid in the ice to produce CO2. Scientists measured CO2 in Greenland ice but the results were rejected. That’s why all the CO2 records you see are from Antarctica. Similarly, scientists would publish findings describing problems with the CO2 records in Antarctic ice cores if such problems existed.
Chris,
I saw this study posted recently at CP:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1178296
While in line with Rothman, it obviously contradicts other studies.
Thoughts? The obvious implication is that the political argument using higher evidence of much higher atmospheric CO2 from hundreds of millions of years ago to claim that life is all good with higher CO2 (a pretty bogus argument to begin with, as if it truly applies to modern human civilization) is clearly rendered clearly obsolete. What are some of the other implications? It seems that other arguments like “if CO2 has an impact, why wasn’t it that much hotter if CO2 was several thousand ppm during [insert geological period here]” are rendered obsolete as well.
Response– It’ll be at least a week before I can read the full paper, but just from the abstract, what exactly do you feel it contradicts?- chris
“…but just from the abstract, what exactly do you feel it contradicts?”
Whoops. I copied the wrong link from the CP comments. Totally different study. Here is the correct one.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/2/576
I believe it contradicts some of the studies summarized here:
Here’s some discussion of the study.
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2009/12/d-o-breecker-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.html
It’s not as riveting as the media’s focus on the “mini ice age” (formerly known as “winter weather”) in select populated parts of the northern hemisphere, but about a billion times more relevant to climate science.
Well Kudos for Richard Alley to be the first afaik to attempt to describe the origin of the massive CO2 sink that is required to permit the onset of cooling in a CO2 rich atmosphere. It’s a great deal of arm-waving (very literally) but at least he didn’t just ignore it like Hansen, Severinghaus and everybody else. That was the main thing that made me skeptical and I’m almost convinced.
Marcus is you’re being very unfair. There is a good deal of odd thinking in deciding the age of the gas in the ice-core and it varies hugely from core to core so there is always room for skepticism about circular logic being involved. We basically rely on trusting the scientists involved. To believe that they can’t all be wrong is to ignore the history of continental drift or big-bang or many other consensus theories. Very often those accused of being kooks by the majority were found to be right on the money. All we need is a good alternative explanation with data to back it up and this theory is history too.
Marcus, having removed the waffle from your comment of 11th Jan. let’s consider your points.
a) could not different ice cores show the same patterns/magnitiudes because of:
1) the same physical fractionation effects occurring?
2) fractionation having no correlation with snow accumulation rates over time or space?
b) You will have to be specific about which other paleo-record approaches you are referring to. If the “Triparti paper” is the 2009 “Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years” (Note 1) then that doesn’t provide any convincing evidence about the validity of the ice core re-constructions. Although the pattern of pCO2 variations matches that from the ice cores, the problem area for me is the and accuracy of estimates. How valid are the assumptions made in order to derive pCO2, e.g. QUOTE: In order to estimate pH and pCO2 from B(OH)4 –/HCO3 – ratios, a further assumption is required to fully constrain the carbonate system. UNQUOTE.
Taking into consideration your item c), it would seem that you have satisfied yourself about these so please help me out here.
Bob A, perhaps you could also provide some substantiation of your statement that QUOTE: Moreover, the gas fractionation that occurs during bubble close-off is extremely small, barely measurable with the most sophisticated analytical instruments. The fractionation is well documented and uncontroversial, UNQUOTE. Please provide links to this documentation.
JamesG, you say QUOTE: We basically rely on trusting the scientists involved UNQUOTE but can we really trust those senior individuals involved in the UN’s IPCC activities. The “Climategate” scandal, the recent fiasco over the IPCC’s AR4 claims about Himalayan glaciers vanishing by 2035 and the recent observations about falsification of surface temperature measurements in the USA, Russia, Australia and New Zealand (Note 2) make many of us highly suspicious of their motives.
NOTES:
1) see http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/tripati.etal.sci.2009.pdf
2) see http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2009/12/falsified-new-zealand-land-surface.html
Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agos(cep)tic
The scandal in climategate ‘scandal’ is that so many deniers and contrarians are still screaming “fraud” and “conspiracy”, while the e-mails show there is none of either.
Although I already commented on the nature of the second blog you refer to, especially the Russia, Australia and New Zealand record has been discussed almost ad infinitum (cf 1), and shows the REAL scandal: people claiming cooking of data by real scientists by cooking the data themselves. Why is it that one error (which didn’t even make it into the summary!) in a HUGE report is somehow evidence of a massive scandal, whereas repeated lies from certain individuals and groups still make those same groups ‘valid’ conveyors of climate information to the deniers, contrarians and ‘skeptics’? Perhaps you can explain that to me.
Note 1 (and be sure to follow any links)
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php
http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-temps-more-stations-no-adjustments-still-warming/
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php
PS:
Here’s more comments on manipulated surface temperature data
http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/
You mean: “here’s yet another complete moron who believes in massive conspiracies involving thousands of people”.
Just note this quote:
“This set of errors, all favoring alarmism, is simply another indicator of a massive scientific fraud orchestrated by the UN IPCC, the Hadley Center and CRU of Great Britain, and NOAA and the NASA GISS of the U.S. All of them aided and abetted by Al Gore, Tony Blair, Obama, Pelosi, many other socialist politicians, and much of the socialist press, which is most of the press.”
If you go around sites where people so openly declare their stupidity, do you expect to be taken serious by people with a *fully* functional brain?
You could also have referred directly (as our moron does) to ‘chiefio’, better known as E. Michael Smith, selling himself as a “computer expert” and ‘hence’ capable of “proving AGW wrong”. That he does not even understand the difference between temperature and temperature anomalies…who cares? It’s all for the greater good.
Pete Ridley
I won’t provide links to copyrighted articles, but here are three relevant references:
Bender, M.L., 2002. Orbital tuning chronology for the Vostok climate record supported by trapped gas composition. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 204(1-2): 275-289.
Severinghaus, J.P. and Battle, M.O., 2006. Fractionation of gases in polar lee during bubble close-off: New constraints from firn air Ne, Kr and Xe observations. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 244(1-2): 474-500.
Kawamura, K., Parrenin, F., Lisiecki, L., Uemura, R., Vimeux, F., Severinghaus, J.P., Hutterli, M.A., Nakazawa, T., Aoki, S., Jouzel, J., Raymo, M.E., Matsumoto, K., Nakata, H., Motoyama, H., Fujita, S., Goto-Azuma, K., Fujii, Y. and Watanabe, O., 2007. Northern Hemisphere forcing of climatic cycles in Antarctica over the past 360,000 years. Nature, 448(7156): 912-916.
These papers show that gas fractionation relative to the atmosphere is generally less than one percent, except where ice samples have been fractured or otherwise stored under poor conditions.
The following quote from Severinghaus and Battle, who have studied the fractionation processes in great detail, provides a summary that addresses many of your questions:
p. 488 “This size-dependent fractionation during bubble close-off must be taken into account by ice core studies that employ Ne, O2 or Ar. Importantly, no evidence for close-off fractionation is seen for molecules larger than 3.6Å. This is true for the noble gases Kr and Xe as well as the greenhouse gases CO2, CH4 and N2O, confirming the integrity of the ice core archive for records of these atmospheric gases.”
Å – angstroms in case readers aren’t familiar.
Pete:
a) Can you come up with a fractionation mechanism that doesn’t depend somehow on the density and quantity of snow in a given location? I can’t. And, as Bob’s citations imply, it would be hard to explain why the different gases didn’t fractionate differently from each other, too.
b) Read the whole paper. Triparti tried 28 different models to address this “further constraint”: all were within 40 ppm of each other over the last 800,000 years, and “all 41 values lie within error of the ice core record” over that period. While I don’t have citations off the top of my head, there are other independent reconstructions that also agree: of course, the ice core record is the most precise and reliable.
JamesG: “Very often those accused of being kooks by the majority were found to be right on the money.” Um. Where “very often” means “one out of a million kooks is right on the money”. I’ve done research in several fields, and trust me, every professor in these fields from physics to chemistry to chemical engineering to climate science has a kook folder where they stuff the 60 page treatises that claim to “overturn the whole field”, “disprove quantum theory”, “invent a perpetual motion device”, “solve the cold fusion problem”, “show that the Moon landings were faked” etc. The difference is that in climate science, these kooks are repeated throughout the blogosphere (eg, Beck, Miskolczki, Chilingar, Plimer, Monckton) whereas in other fields they get the attention they deserve. Very, very, very rarely you get a continental drift or bacterial ulcer “kook” who turns out to not be a kook after all. It might be interesting to analyze their early letters and writings and compare them to the standard kooks and see if there is a detectable difference – I have no evidence, but I bet that there would be.
Bob A, Marcus, thanks for trying to help on the fractionation issue. I need some time to read the papers to which you referred. Meanwhile:
– Bob you quoted “p. 488 This size-dependent fractionation .. must be taken into account by ice core studies … no evidence for close-off fractionation is seen for molecules larger than 3.6Å .. ”. In my comment December 29, 2009 @ 12:42 pm I quoted sizes for N2 (3.6Å), O2(3.5Å) and CO2 (3.2Å). Are you challenging those sizes? If so then please would you point me to the source supporting this. If not then why would CO2 not experience preferential fractionation over N and O2?
BTW, why won’t you provide links to copyright material? The links aren’t covered.
– Marcus, I accept your point about fractionation having a dependence upon “.. the density and quantity of snow in a given location .. “ but I am puzzled by “ .. it would be hard to explain why the different gases didn’t fractionate differently from each other, too” unless you also challenge the molecule sizes that I quote previously – do you? As for your comment that “ .. there are other independent reconstructions that also agree: of course, the ice core record is the most precise and reliable.“ Some people are prepared to accept without question what they are told. I am not one of those.
As I E-mailed all of the Australian MPs and senators recently QUOTE:
More and more evidence is coming into the public domain showing that senior activists supporting The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis (AKA AGW) have been distorting the scientific evidence. The suspect activities of leading scientists (all significant contributors to the IPCC reports) of on both sides of the Atlantic have been exposed through the leaked UEA CRU files (“Climategate”), with an excellent analysis by Dr. John P. Costella (Note 1). There is the IPCC’s ludicrous inclusion in its 2007 AR4 (as latest scientific evidence) of speculation by a single scientist in a telephone call that the Himalayan glaciers would have melted by 2035 when the experts in this area were saying that even at the present rate of melting it would be 2350 before they would vanish (and we’re now heading into several decades of cooling). Let us not overlook the questionable vested financial interests and activities of IPCC Chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri (Note 2) Add to that the recent observations about falsification of surface temperature measurements in the USA, Russia, Australia and New Zealand (Note 3) no wonder so many voters are highly suspicious of the motives of politicians, environmentalists and financial speculators like Al Gore.
UN support for The Hypothesis is for reasons other than controlling global climates. Its agenda is: - redistribution of wealth from developed to underdeveloped economies, - establishment of a framework for global government, - enhancement of the financial position of a privileged minority.
As more of this scandal is exposed on the Internet (and now the main-stream media) the voters will become very very angry with those politicians who have supported this scam. The day of reckoning will be on polling day.
NOTES:
1) see http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/
2) see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html
3) see http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2009/12/falsified-new-zealand-land-surface.html and http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/
UNQUOTE.
We have to defeat the attempts of self-seeking politicians to introduce economically damaging CPRS/ETS legislation imposing a tax on that essential, life-supporting, non-polluting substance CO2.
Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agos(cep)tic
“N2 (3.6Å), O2(3.5Å) and CO2 (3.2Å)”
Huh. I was going to express doubt about any assertion of CO2 being smaller than O2, based on “common sense”. However, a brief google search implies that that might actually be the case. Unfortunately, I no longer have access to Gaussian molecular simulation software, or I’d do a 6-311G** calculation to try to figure out why.
(“The gases used, and their respective molecular diameters, were CO2 (0.330 nm), O2 (0.346 nm), N2 (0.364 nm) and CH4 (0.380 nm)” Carrot et al. 2006)
In any case, my point was that since CO2 and CH4 have different sizes and therefore different diffusion rates, if the diffusion rate of either was significant one would expect to see large differences appearing in old ice core records – and yet CO2 and CH4 seem to move pretty well in sync, and with fairly similar magnitudes from one interglacial to the next. Again, like the fact that different ice cores give very similar results, it would be hard to explain why different gases move in sync if there enough diffusion going on to cast doubt on the IPCC conclusions about historical gas concentrations.
Marcus,
See new comment at end of thread, 25/26 January 2010.
Bob A, you said QUOTE: These papers show that gas fractionation relative to the atmosphere is generally less than one percent UNQUOTE but that is not what I understand from those papers that you gave the titles from. Bender’s paper (Note 1), which makes scnt mention of CO2, says quote: ..its value in their samples was about 1% less than in the atmosphere. .. UNQUOTE but this is with regard to O2/N2 ratio.
It goes on to say QUOTE: ..O2 was depleted in wide range of ice cores. .. because its molecular diameter was smaller than that of N2. Channels of air at the bubble close-off region at the base of the firn are at pressures above that of the ambient atmosphere due to compression by the overburden. Air is thus trying to escape from closing bubbles. When the necks of the closing channels reach molecular dimensions, there will be a point at which O2 molecules can escape while N2 is retained. The presence of excess O2 in air deep in the firn [20] confirms exclusion, but not necessarily its mechanism. UNQUOTE
Doesn’t this suggest that because of its much smaller molecular size “close- off fractionation“ of CO2 will carry on well after that of N2 and O2 has ceased, hence depleting the CO2 concentration of the air in lower levels while enriching air above? Can you explain where my reasoning has gone wrong here?
I think that the scientific uncertainty about this mechanism (to which Jaworowski has referred on numerous occasions) is illustrated by the closing sentence of Section 3 QUOTE: .. it remains for us to identify the exact grain property(s) that affect close-off fractionation. We also do not know the precise way in which the close-off process fractionates gases according to their molecular diameters. UNQUOTE. I am not aware that this has yet been resolved, but maybe the other two papers will clarify that.
I see that the paper by Severinghaus and Battle (Note 2) quotes sizes for N2, O2 and CO2 of 3.8, 3.5 and 3.9Å, rather than those used by practitioners in the field of “molecular gate” technology used in the energy industry. Severinghaus and Battle do acknowledge QUOTE: .. that effective diameter depends on the nature of both molecules in a collision. .. so the values given here (which were measured in pure gases) may have limited relevance UNQUOTE. Any ideas anyone?
Taking into consideration all of this uncertainty, I can see no justification for anyone to claim that “the science is settled”, or for Professor Alley to regard ice core reconstructions to be the “gold standard”.
NOTES:
1) see http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/bender/lab/downloads/Bender_2002_copy.pdf
2) see http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/closeoff_EPSL.pdf
3) see http://www.moleculargate.com/nitrogen-rejection-N2-removal/Coal-Bed-Methane-Upgrading.html
Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agos(cep)tic
Bob A, the paper by Kawamura, et al. (Note 1) like that of Bender, is concerned with the O2/N2 ratio, not with close-off fractionation of CO2, however, it is interesting to read QUOTE: .. that the Antarctic cooling for the MIS 5e–d and 7e–d transitions began earlier by several millennia than the corresponding CO2 and sea level drops. UNQUOTE. Fig. 2 clearly shows the significant lag of CO2 concentration behind temperature.
NOTE:
1) see http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/Kawamura_Nature_2007.pdf
I’ve watched the performance of Prof. Alley. I think there is a good term for this: “stand-up comedian”, a clownery. Very depressing.
Of course you find it depressing. It shows everything you do not want to be true.
I do believe it is true that chemical weathering is a biggest “control knob”. Trouble is that this knob turns on time scales of “millions of years”, which makes all the excitement irrelevant, and makes the entire presentation a comedy of red herring. All these wonders about prehistorical CO2 are fine but meaningless until you folks can present any physical evidence (other than faint speculations and mysterious radiative codes running over simplified soundings) that changes in CO2 (relative to levels of 200-400 ppm) really affect global climate to any measurable degree. I hope that you will not invoke a goofy “if not CO2, then what else?” argument.
“mysterious radiative codes”…well, that’s one way of indicating you don’t understand the math and aren’t interested in it either.
If, by chance, I misrepresented you, you can start here for some physical evidence:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
(follow the links to the literature)
Marco, regarding the math, it is not easy to get a true feel of integro-differential Schwarzschild equations integrated over unspecified temperature profile and spectrum broadening conditions. If you do understand and interested, please reproduce here the result of Myhre 1998, so I can check the math myself… 🙂
Regarding the physical evidence, the site you mention uses wrong and rigged data charts. To start, their plot selection is wrong: the plot (c) in Fig.1 is a “simulated” difference, not the actual measurement. More, the original instrument had a really poor accuracy at the ends of presented intervals, and the particularly interesting 670 cm-1 region is likely a complete garbage. Second, the spectral resolution of 1970 baseline is very coarse to determine actual line absorbency. Third, it is known that the hot calibration target is/was a subject to substantial drift, so most of satellite data were later “re-analyzed”, with apparent intent. Later works of Griggs and Harries are even less convincing IMO, look at their Fig.2 More, three who-knows how selected spectral data points covering 100x100km area in one sunny day in mid-pacific do not seem to represent the entire 5e+8 km2 of Earth over ever-changing weather conditions. Sorry, I remain skeptical.
I don’t you what page you’ve been looking at, but there’s no Figure 1c in the link I gave. On top of that, Figure 2 isn’t from Griggs and Harries.
And there’s a few more references than just to these two.
Marco, In the link there is Figure 1 that contains only section (c) from the original work.
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/321/Harries_Spectrum_2001.pdf
Please take a deeper look at the first line in (b) and tell me if you can draw the same conclusion as the entire article.
The Figure 2 was referred as “their Fig.2”, right after mentioning “Griggs and Harries”. Which part of “their” was unclear?
Incidentally, I see no mentioning of error margins in spectral amplitudes in all these works, please correct me if I missed them.
rose.bristol.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/1983/999/1/paper.pdf
Also, in Griggs-Harrier-2004, the baseline spectrum from 1970 observations is a selection of 0.7% of the available dataset. I would say this is quite a “narrow selection”.
More, it seems that the difference between data that are 6 years apart is quite bigger than the difference in data that are 27 years apart.
I think there is enough discrepancies to excuse my deep skepticism. Sorry.
Pete Ridley,
You already found the answer to your question about gas molecule size in the paper by Severinghaus and Battle. I know that a range of gas molecule diameters can be found for CO2 by searching on the web. I’m not an expert so I can’t say which is correct. Severinghaus and Battle are experts on this so I would imagine that they would use the best values.
Based on the work of Bender, Severinghaus and others, gas fractionation during bubble close off is small. Severinghaus says that it is negligible for CO2. Can you point to experimental evidence that it is much larger than Severinghaus says it is?
Regarding your last point, that CO2 lags temperature: I’m surprised that this has become such a big issue. Back in the 1980’s, when scientists were first discussing the implications of CO2 records from ice cores, the literature is clear that CO2 is thought to be a feedback that amplified changes triggered by variations in earth’s orbit. As a feedback, CO2 MUST lag the initial forcing. I’m not aware of any climate scientists who said that CO2 was the initial cause of climate variability over the past million years. Why make an issue out of something that isn’t one?
Al Tekhasski, it is quite clear from some of the comments here that there are people who are impressed by his style of presentation. Taking into consideration the ridiculous claims being made by the UN’s IPCC about the “sciewnce”, perhaps his comedy act is appropriate. The science has always been riddled with uncertainty. Now it is clear, from “Climategate” (Note 1), the vested financial interests of the UN’s IPCC chairman (Note 2), the IPCC’s inclusion of the ludicrous speculative opinion of a single scientist about Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035 (Note 3) and the recent disclosures about global temperature measurements from the USA, Australia, New Zealand and Russia being tampered with so that mean global temperatures appear higher than they would otherwise be (Note 4) that it is a joke. No credence can be placed in any of the claims.
The UK’s skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation called for an inquiry to be carried out by a High Court judge. Now Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee has announced that it will have one (Note 5). Of course, because it is an enquiry by politicians, virtually all of whom supported the UN’s propaganda, there is no guarantee that it will be open and honest
This UN-inspired confidence trick has nothing to do with controlling global climates but everything to do with:
– redistribution of wealth from developed to underdeveloped economies,
– establishment of a framework for global government,
– enhancement of the finances of a privileged few.
NOTES:
1) see http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
2) see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7007891/The-curious-case-of-the-expanding-environmental-group-with-falling-income.html
3) see http://in.news.yahoo.com/20/20100123/1416/tnl-pachauri-rules-out-resignation-as-ip.html
4) see http://act.libdems.org.uk/group/globalwarmingpolicyfoundation/forum/topics/temperature-data-skewed?xg_source=activity
5) see http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_pn14_100122.cfm
Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global climate change Agnos(cep)tic.
Pete, why do you keep repeating the LIES about the temperature data being manipulated?
It must be a real shocker to you that the WUWT surfacestation project actually showed there to be a *cooling* bias in the poorly sited stations. Watts and Pielke Sr are doing desperate damage control by pointing to as many other things as possible (Watts) and crying about “professional discourtesy” (Pielke Sr).
Regarding IPCC chairman Pachauri, there is an interesting item on the Wattsupwiththat site (Note 1) “HIGHNOON for Pachauri”. It includes QUOTE: The National Hurricane Center chief scientist Christopher Landsea resigned in 2007 from the IPCC over what he cited as lack of confidence in the science “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. UNQUOTE”.
Here’s the missing link from my previous comment
NOTE 1) see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/highnoon-for-pachauri/
Bob A, you appear to be out of your depth on molecule size and are simply accepting what are told by others. If you are not really interested in finding out about the preferential fractionation of CO2 then just say so. I don’t accept the opinion of others without question, especially when empirical evidence from practitioners in the the technology are selling working systems to the energy industry.
Pete,
You didn’t answer my question (23 January). Can you point to evidence that Severinghaus is wrong about the molecular diameter of CO2 that should be used when evaluating gas fractionation during bubble close-off in ice?
Marcus,
One can find a range of effective molecular diameters for gases. Apparently different values are used depending on the application.
A table of effective diameters from the National Physical Laboratory computed by two methods can be found at:
http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_2/2_2_4.html
In that table, the effective diameter of CO2 is greater than that of O2 and N2. Similarly, each of the three references below presents data for effective diameters of gas molecules. Absolute values differ among references, but all show CO2 being larger than O2 and N2.
Cuthbert, T.R., Wagner, N.J. and Paulaitis, M.E., 1997. Molecular simulation of glassy polystyrene: Size effects on gas solubilities. Macromolecules, 30(10): 3058-3065.
Mozaffari, F., Eslami, H. and Moghadasi, J., 2010. Molecular dynamics simulation of diffusion and permeation of gases in polystyrene. Polymer, 51(1): 300-307.
Viitanen, V.P. and Harvela, H., 1995. Gas Leak through Ultrathin Radiation Entrance Windows. Nuclear Instruments & Methods in Physics Research Section a-Accelerators Spectrometers Detectors and Associated Equipment, 360(3): 566-570.
The various sources use different units (picometers is common) but the effective diameters for CO2 vary between about 3.8 an 4.5 angstroms among the sources.
This is probably more detail than anyone wants. Your point is the most convincing, namely, the excellent internal consistency among gases and among sites with different characteristics argues against any significant, let alone random, bias in the data.
Bob A, thanks for the contribution. I’ll take a look at the papers you named. Meanwhile, I previously quoted sizes for N2 (3.6Å), O2(3.5Å) and CO2 (3.2Å) as used by practitioners in the field of gas separation for the energy industry. Other experts in the field of the passage of gas molecules (including CO2 and O2) through membranes are from the medical profession. One such source (Note 1) says QUOTE: .. Carbon dioxide .. has an effective molecular diameter between 2.8 and 3.4Å, .. CO2 is a linear molecule with a smaller transversal than longitudinal diameter .. the molecular dimensions of O2 (effective diameter 2.3–2.9Å) UNQUOTE.
Another paper (Note 2) on the diffusion of Co2, O2, N2 and CH4 through polyimide membrane does not give molecular diameters but does indicate that O2 and CO2 behave anomalously and that the effecive size of CO2 may be somewhere between its 3.3 and 3.9 Å.
So here we have here another area of significant uncertainty, just as Professor Jaworowski said repeatedly.
NOTES:
1) see http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/full/20/12/1974
2) see http://www.cjps.org/qikan/manage/wenzhang/98010086.pdf
Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agos(cep)tic
I have been following this discussion with interest. One thing I don’t understand is, how would fractionation result in a cyclical variation in CO2 over 800,000 years of ice core record? Surely if actual CO2 concentrations were reasonably steady over the 800,000 years in question, and significant fractionation had occurred, then should be some monotonic trend, rather than a cyclical one, in C02 measurements from a singe ice core record? Or put another way, if CO2 concentrations were constant over the last 800,000 years, how would significant fractionation affect the measured CO2 from an ice core record?
Response– The answer is that “assumptions” such as air components dissolved on firn grains, chemical reactions in ice producing gases, fractionation process during enclosure of air in bubbles, etc must all be tested and have been performed especially for the main GHG’s. These “issues” are all well discussed in the literature if people look hard enough. Results from various ice cores (from very different conditions) give basically the same answer (note that some locations, especially in Greenland, are well known to be unsuitable for CO2 reconstruction). The usage of ice cores as a CO2 concentration proxy has thus proven to be a remarkable good tool, despite a lot of smoke screen rhetoric suggesting otherwise.– chris
James, Chris, Pete and others, In making my previous comments I had misunderstood the thread of the argument. I thought the issue was “how accurately can CO2 concentrations be reconstructed?” I did not realize that anyone questioned whether or not atmospheric CO2 changed.
Changes in ocean chemistry, recorded in marine sediments, leave no doubt that atmospheric CO2 changed between glacial and interglacial periods. One cannot reconstruct CO2 concentrations from marine sediments as accurately as one can from ice cores, but the sediment data are entirely consistent with the ice core CO2 record.
The processes that transferred CO2 from the atmosphere to the deep ocean during the ice ages had several detectable impacts on ocean chemistry:
1) Because CO2 is an acid, the surface ocean was more alkaline (higher pH) during ice ages when atmospheric O2 was lower, and vice versa. These changes in pH are recorded in boron isotopes locked into the calcium carbonate shells of tiny plankton (Ref1).
2) Storage of CO2 in the deep ocean during ice ages made the deep ocean more acidic at the beginning of ice ages, when atmospheric CO2 levels were dropping, and more alkaline at the end of ice ages when CO2 was released from the deep sea to the atmosphere. These changes in deep ocean chemistry are recorded by varying preservation of calcium carbonate in deep-sea sediments (Ref2, but there are many more references on this topic).
3) The build-up of CO2 in the deep ocean during ice ages also affected the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 of carbon dissolved in seawater; specifically, the ratio of carbon-13/carbon-12 in surface water was greater than today during ice ages while the opposite was true in the deep ocean. Shackleton (Ref3) used this principle to show that carbon isotopes recorded in microscopic fossils are consistent with the CO2 record of ice cores. Moreover, when he published this in 1983, he made a reasonably accurate prediction the general trend of atmospheric CO2 back to 150,000 years ago based on carbon isotopes in microscopic fossils. This was at a time when the Vostok CO2 record had been measured back to only about 40,000 years, so he could not have manipulated the prediction to agree with ice core data.
These independent lines of evidence from ocean sediments all indicate that the atmospheric CO2 record reconstructed from ice cores must be approximately correct. They disprove any hypothesis that the cycles in CO2 measured in ice cores are an artifact associated with the preservation of atmospheric gases in ice or an artifact in the measurement of the CO2 content of gases stored in ice.
Ref1: Honisch, B. and Hemming, N.G., 2005. Surface ocean pH response to variations in pCO(2) through two full glacial cycles. Earth And Planetary Science Letters, 236(1-2): 305-314.
Ref2: Hodell, D.A., Charles, C.D. and Sierro, F.J., 2001. Late Pleistocene evolution of the ocean’s carbonate system. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 192(2): 109-124.
Ref3: Shackleton, N.J., Hall, M.A., Line, J. and Shuxi, C., 1983. Carbon isotope data in Core V19-30 confirm reduced carbon dioxide concentration in the ice age atmosphere. Nature, 306: 319-322.
Bob A said:
“These independent lines of evidence from ocean sediments all indicate that the atmospheric CO2 record reconstructed from ice cores must be approximately correct. They disprove any hypothesis that the cycles in CO2 measured in ice cores are an artifact associated with the preservation of atmospheric gases in ice or an artifact in the measurement of the CO2 content of gases stored in ice.”
I think you are pulling a straw here. I am not aware of any hypothesis that questions the presence of cycles in ice cores. What is questionable is the absolute magnitude of the signal. All you described above (“more alkaline”, “less alkaline”, more isotopes, less isotopes) proves nothing about absolute magnitudes. Since there were no absolute thermometers in the past, all proxies are calibrated against each other, which likely creates a false cross-reference loop.
The scientific evidence is clear enough that CO2 causes “some” warming of the atmosphere by impeding the emission infrared radiation. In turn, this warming allows the atmosphere to hold more water vapor which in turn causes additional warming by impeding the emission of infrared radiation.
It is only after consideration of these certainties that the science gets really interesting and beyond our ability to easily quantify. This is because the additional water vapor in the atmosphere also causes more weather. So, we see more clouds and greater precipitation. Increased levels of clouds traps more heat in the atmosphere and reflects sunlight during daylight hours. Also, increased precipitation in the polar regions can result in greater extent of snow and also reflect sunlight during daylight hours.
Over longer periods of time, warming from all of the above factors results in changes glaciers and sea ice. This increases the amount of sunlight being absorbed and results in more warming. Also, the warming of land allows forest to grow in the polar regions which also absorb more sunlight than the land would otherwise.
All of these factors are time dependent. It takes several years for a quantity of CO2 to become evenly mixed in the atmosphere a while longer for water vapor to respond and much longer for changes in land and oceans. The impact of changing CO2 levels in the atmosphere is not fully realized until after several centuries; perhaps a millennium.
Andrew said:
“The scientific evidence is clear enough that CO2 causes “some” warming of the atmosphere by impeding the emission infrared radiation.”
The keyword here is “some warming”. So far the observational evidence seems to indicate that this “some” is about 1/6 or less of the purely theoretical estimation of radiative forcing from CO2. What if the barely observable global warming is caused by all other sum of factors (land use, soot, some cloud cover change) and CO2 does not affect temperatures to any measurable degree? Then all your construction of feedbacks becomes meaningless.
Please keep in mind that your construction of bootstrapping feedbacks seems to work only in one way – up, and therefore does not provide any conceptual explanation of long sliding into ice ages. Now, one can reverse your logic backwards, which will end up with unconditional cooling and iceball Earth. This would mean that both constructions are likely wrong because they are mutually exclusive, and can be reconciled only if we assume the climate is neutrally stable to CO2 fluctuations.
Al;
I wasn’t trying to explain the ice age cycles.
They are driven by changes in earth orbit.
Changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations play a role,
but do not drive the cycles.
As the earths orbit shifts over time, more or less sunlight reaches the northern hemisphere. This results in less or more snow and ice in the northern hemsiphere. This results in more or less sunlight being absorbed to such an extent that even though the total amount of sunlight reaching earth is nearly constant, there is a small overall warming or cooling of the earth.
This cyclic warming/cooling in turn results in higher/lower concentrations of both CO2 and CH4. This is primarily due to chemical and biological process that are influenced by the changes in temperature and precipitation.
To fully explain all of the climatic changes during ice ages, all of the influences need to be taken into account. Greenhouse gases account for roughly a third of the temperature changes.
For the last 8000 years, the earth orbit has been shifting toward less
sunlight in the northern hemisphere. The earth had been gradualy cooling
for roughly 5000 years prior to the industrial revolution.
There really isn’t much legitimate doubt that CO2 causes global warming.
The only question is exactly how much and over what time periods.
The accepted range of warmng for CO2 in between 2 to 4.5C/CO2 doubling.
What is discussed much less is how quickly the warming will be realized.
To answer that question, one really needs to know how fast Greenland and Antarctica will melt, but there isn’t anybody that really knows that answer.
Values a high as a millenium are plausable, but that is essentially a guess.
We are heading towards unchartered territory for which there are no similar historical event. As West Antarctica slowly breaks up, there will be some very big geological surprises.
Response– Note that the timescale for the realized warming is not necessarily the timescale for which ice sheets respond. Actually when you include these kind of “slow feedbacks” the sensitivity is even higher on century timescales– chris
Bob A, am I correct in thinking that you now accept my comment of 26th as answering your question of 23rd and 25th about evidence of CO2 molecule size?
Ref your comment on 28th, I wasn’t aware QUOTE: that anyone questioned whether or not atmospheric CO2 changed UNQUOTE. I certainly have no reason so to do, I have taken a look at the abstracts of those papers to which you referred and have no problems with the ability of the reconstruction methods used to give some qualitative indication of changes in atmospheric composition. I find no evidence to convince me of an ability to provide accurate quantitative measures for the different gases, particularly for CO2. Having access only to the abstracts may have caused me to miss something that you are aware of. If I have then please would you provide a precise reference to the piece of text so that I can track it down. I agree with Al Tekhasski on this and also with his response to Andrew’s comment of 28th..
James (Claridge), I don’t know where you have been led to believe that anyone here thinks that QUOTE: CO2 concentrations were constant over the last 800,000 years UNQUOTE. Can you clarify this please. Chris’s comment as usual does little in the way of providing or pointing to evidence supporting what he says.
We have the significant uncertainty about CO2 size hence significant uncertainty about preferential “close-off” fractionation along with all of the other significant scientific uncertainties about climate processes and drivers. Added to all of that, thanks to “Climategate”, Pacaurigate”, “Glaciergate” and “Amazongate” we now have the certainty that the IPCC and its supporters (scientific and political) are not to be trusted. “IPCCgate” is exposing this UN-inspired scam for what it always was – a propaganda exercise aimed at:
– redistribution of wealth from developed to underdeveloped economies,
– establishment of a framework for global government,
– enhancement of the finances of a privileged few.
The house of cards is now collapsing. So what will they try to scare us with next? Maybe next time people will not be so gullible.
Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agos(cep)tic
Pete;
It’s a silly argument to suggest that Climate Science is part of some sort of financial or world governmental conspiracy.
Personally, I’m not naive enough to fall for such scare tactics. Not that there aren’t plenty of people looking to steal our savings. In fact, they have already done fairly well thru various bubble and collapses but that has got nothing to do with the science of CO2.
I’m as concerned about the crooks as much as anybody. However, expecting all main stream scientists to be dishonest and part of some larger conspiracy is paranoia.
Pete, thanks for your response.
Having gone back through the thread for this post, I can see that my point about the implications of fractionation of CO2 relative to other gases was perhaps a out of context.
What I am trying to establish is exactly how this (i.e. relative fractionation of CO2) adds significant uncertainty to the AGW hypothesis. There seems to me to be two key components of interest in relation to the historic CO2 record (as indicated by ice cores, and perhaps distorted by fractionation)
1) its relationship to the historic temperature as evidence (one way or the other) for the correlation/causation (including feedback) between CO2 concentrations and global mean temp.
2) in relation to modern times, as evidence (one way or the other) of an increase in CO2 concentrations due to human activities (by indicating the concentration of CO2 prior to the advent of relevant human activities i.e. land clearing, fossil fuels etc).
I mistakenly thought it was the first of these that you were addressing (hence my question about the cyclical nature of the ice core record and how fractionation would affect that), but now believe that it is the second.
Is your concern that the level of CO2 prior to the advent of human activities may have been much higher than 280 ppm, and thus the reported increase is overstated? If so, do you also have concerns regarding the Mauna Loa record – which shows a rate of increase from 315 to 385 ppm over just 50 years – a rate that is apparently much higher than indicated at any previous period in the ice core record (though I don’t have the raw data from the ice core record to confirm this)? If not, then how does the relative fractionation of CO2 (if significant) add to the uncertainty underlying the AGW hypothesis?
Hope you can help
Thanks
James Claridge
Andrew, perhaps where you are going wrong is in thinking that QUOTE: all main stream scientists UNQUOTE accept The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis as being valid. They don’t.
Take a look at http://www.climategate.com/thanks-dr-john-costella-the-climate-floodgates-are-opening for Dr John Costella’s excellent analysis of the contents of the UEA CRU files underpinning the “Climategate” scandal.
Best regards, Pete R
Pete and Al,
Again, I may have misunderstood both of you. I thought you were citing arguments that the CO2 cycles that appear in the ice core records are artifacts of variable gas fractionation rather than true representations of changes in the composition of the atmosphere.
Just to clarify – What do you think the CO2 record from the ice cores represents? How much change in atmospheric CO2 concentration do you think actually happened? What is the evidence for the range of CO2 that you accept?
Pete – You are correct that there is a range of values posted for the size of the CO2 molecule. In my search I found references citing values from 3.2 angstroms (your original value) to 4.5 angstroms.
The main question here is: dos this make any difference for the reliability of the CO2 records from ice cores? If so, then what is the evidence that the CO2 records from ice cores are biased, how are they biased, and by how much?
Al and Pete – The estimates of changes in atmospheric CO2 based on ocean records are not cross referenced against the ice core CO2 records. They are completely independent and provide compelling evidence that the amplitude of the CO2 variability recorded in ice cores is accurate.
The most straightforward method is the one used by Hönisch et al. who I cited previously. From the boron isotope ratio in calcium carbonate fossils they can calculate the pH of ocean surface water. Assuming that the total alkalinity to salinity ratio of seawater did not change over the past few hundred thousand years, it is possible to calculate the partial pressure of CO2 of surface ocean water accurately from knowledge of total alkalinity and pH. Throughout most of the ocean, the partial pressure of CO2 in surface water is close to the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, so one can estimate changes in atmospheric CO2 from changes in pH of the ocean without any cross reference to the ice cores. That is what Hönisch did and her results match the ice core CO2 record very well.
The other two methods I mentioned are not as precise as the boron isotopes, but they are consistent with 100 ppm changes in atmospheric CO2.
In my previous comment I did not mention the work of Howie Spero at the University of California – Davis. He has grown planktonic foraminifera (small organisms that make calcium carbonate shells) in culture and determined a quantitative relationship between the carbon isotope composition of the shells and the carbonate ion concentration of the water in which they grew. The carbonate ion concentration in seawater is related to the partial pressure of CO2 much as pH is. Spero has measured the carbon isotope ratios of foraminifera that grew during the last ice age and he showed that the results are consistent with a 100 ppm reduction of atmospheric CO2. That method is less precise than Hönisch’s, but it’s consistent. I didn’t cite Spero’s work before because I don’t have the references to give you.
This may be far more details than you want. But I wanted to let you know that there are multiple independent lines of evidence from the ocean that support the 100 ppm range of atmospheric CO2 over the last 800,000 years inferred from the ice cores.
But, again, what is the evidence for artifacts in the ice core CO2 record? That is, what is the evidence that atmospheric CO2 did not change by about 100 ppm between ice ages and interglacials?
Bob A and James C, this is what I was hoping for – sensible debate trying to iron out differences of opinion rather than silly exchanges of dogma and insults. Thanks both for your contributions.
Bob, on 19th Jan. you said QUOTE: gas fractionation that occurs during bubble close-off is extremely small, barely measurable with the most sophisticated analytical instruments. The fractionation is well documented UNQUOTE. I am not aware that any of the papers to which you have linked provide evidence supporting what you said and would appreciate a precise reference to such documentation, however, if it has to be paid for to see it then it’s no good to me. If so perhaps you could quote precisely what is said. My puzzle is how did those scientists who measured the fractionation actually get into those ice sheets to do those measurements during close-off and I’d love to know how they did it or simulated the process.
You also said QUOTE: the scientific community is careful about checking UNQUOTE but this is not supported by the evidence from “Climategate”, “Glaciergate”, “Amazongate” or “Disastergate” (Note 1 – all under the umbrella of “IPCCgate”). You are obviously much more trusting of scientists involved directly in climate research than I am.
James, I have no problems with the claim that the ice cores provide evidence of a correlation between global temperature change and atmospheric CO2 concentration. I’m happy to agree that CO2 change is caused by temperature change and lags it by up to 1000 years. As you say, it is my QUOTE: concern that the level of CO2 prior to the advent of human activities may have been much higher than 280 ppm, and thus the reported increase is overstated UNQUOTE. Yes, I QUOTE: also have concerns regarding the Mauna Loa record – which shows a rate of increase from 315 to 385 ppm over just 50 years – a rate that is apparently much higher than indicated at any previous period in the ice core record UNQUOTE. I have several concerns about the Mauna Loa record, including location, data manipulation and that arbitrary shifting of the record by 83 years in order to aligh the measurements with the reconstruction from ice cores (Note 3).
Let me try to clarify my uncertainty about what close-off fractionation could be doing to the different gases in the atmosphere, but please remember that I am not a scientist but was a Chartered Engineer. Hopefully it helps you to understand where I am coming from but more importantly, you can show me where my theory has gone wrong. Starting off with a hypothetical standard mix of gases in the open air (ignoring H2O) of O2 21%, N2 78%, Ar 0.9%, CO2 0.03% and others 0.07% (Note 2). Let us assume that over time this is trapped by snowflakes on the top of an ice sheet. As more snow accumulates and compresses the snow beneath more air is trapped above but natural variations in gas mixtures is occurring continuously. As the pores within the snow/ice (firn) get smaller the trapped gases find it harder and harder to mix, then at some point the gases with the largest molecular size are prevented from mixing. Up to this point “averaging” of the gas concentrations over the period of time from initial capture has taken place but ceases for those larger molecules. Close-off fractionation commences, allowing the gases with smaller molecules to filter upwards (lower pressure), reducing their concentrations in the lower levels but increasing it above. This process does not result in all of the smaller molecules from moving upwards, therefore any fluctuations in the concentration of the various gases will be retained (qualitative), however, the concentration levels are distorted (quantitative). When close-off is complete for all gases the upper levels will exhibit higher concentrations of the smallest gases (particularly CO2 and CH4) than originally existed in the atmosphere
Bob A, I have no reason to doubt that QUOTE: the estimates of changes in atmospheric CO2 based on ocean records are not cross referenced against the ice core CO2 records. They are completely independent .. Unquote however, I have seen no evidence to support your claim that they QUOTE: provide compelling evidence that the amplitude of the CO2 variability recorded in ice cores is accurate UNQUOTE. Yes, perhas the QUOTE: Hönisch .. results match the ice core CO2 record very well UNQUOTE in showing the same pattern of variability but that is not the same as providing accurate measures of amplitude. I have not seen in any of your references evidence supporting your claim about accuracy in determining the ancient atmosphere concentration levels of CO2.
NOTES:
1) see http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/
2) see http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/molecular-mass-air-d_679.html
3) see http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf page 43.
Pete
Have tried to track down some studies on fractionation
Ja, thanks for trying. If you find anything then please advise.
Best regards, Pete R
The Planck response of the atmosphere to rising CO2 levels is about 1.1C/CO2 doubling. However, we know that any warming of the atmosphere must also include a feedback from water vapor and lapse rate that nearly doubles the warming. We also know that rising temperatures will always melt ice resulting in a lower albedo and increased absorption of sunlight for even more warming.
Based on the above, the most likely range of climate equilibrium sensitivity is between 2 to 4.5C/CO2 doubling.
Right now, the earth is far from equilibrium with 95% of all glaciers and ice sheets in retreat. In addition, sea levels are rising about 3mm/year. Since water has among the lowest albedo of any planetary surface, this is also leading to a slow but positive warming feedback.
At our current global rate of 0.016C/year of warming, Middle Pliocene like temperatures could be achieved within 225 years. At 3mm/year, Middle Pliocene sea levels could be obtained within 12,000 years.
Obviously, there could be some acceleration of the rate at which ice sheets are melting, bringing these 2 time estimates into better alignment. However, these time periods illustrate the scale over which full realization of the warming could be felt. Even with some acceleration, it’s going to take a long time to melt much of Greenland and for trees to grow on the exposed soils.
Andrew, you say with confidence QUOTE: we know that any warming of the atmosphere must also include a feedback from water vapor and lapse rate that nearly doubles the warming. We also know that rising temperatures will always melt ice resulting in a lower albedo and increased absorption of sunlight for even more warming. Based on the above, the most likely range of climate equilibrium sensitivity is between 2 to 4.5C/CO2 doubling. UNQUOTE. I would appreciate you directing me to the source of this confidence.
As I understand it we do not even know the sign of the water vapour feedback, let alone its magnitude. You mention changes in albedo but make no mention of clouds. As IPCC AR4 WG1 Synthesis Report (Page 38) acknowledges QUOTE: Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty. UNQUOTE. Even the political document the SPM (Page 12) says this. The Synthesis Report identifies this as one of the QUOTE: Key uncertainties .. Models differ considerably in their estimates of the strength of different feedbacks in the climate system, particularly cloud feedbacks, UNQUOTE (Page 73).
I’ve obviously missed some important findings that you have become aware of since AR4 was published. This issue was been debated on Dr. Geoffrey Glassman’s blog (Note 1) as recently as July 2009 so perhaps you’d like to enlighten us all by making a contribution there.
You give a figure for QUOTE: current global rate of 0.016C/year of warming UNQUOTE but the only reference to that figure that I can find is for the short period of 1970 – 2005 (Note 2). The “current rate” for the period 1998 – 2009 is much less than that even according to Tamino. Of course, the bottom line is can we trust those claims about surface temperatures? – NO according to “SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS: POLICY DRIVEN DECEPTION? by Joseph D’Aleo & Anthony Watts | January 29, 2010” (Note 3).
You say confidently that QUOTE: sea levels are rising about 3mm/year UNQUOTE but once again fail to substantiate what you say. Not everyone accepts what the University of Pennsylvania states in its press releases, especially since the “Climategate” exposures. Have a look at “Group Demands REAL Investigation Into Mann” (Note4) QUOTE: The Commonwealth Foundation in Harrisburg, Pa. does not trust Pennsylvania State University to investigate Climategate hockey sticker Michael Mann, because of the millions of dollars that his research brings to the university. UNQUOTE. You might also benefit from reading “North Carolina sea levels rising 3mm a year? UC sea level data says differently” (Note 5).
Each day brings more and more exposure to this UN-inspired confidence trick.
NOTES:
Once again I had difficulty posting this comment so please note to add the htpp:// to these links.
1) see http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html
2) see http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
3) see scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html
4) see spectator.org/blog/2010/01/12/group-demands-real-investigati
5) see wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/29/north-carolina-sea-levels-rising-3mm-a-year-uc-sea-level-data-says-differently
Best regards, Pete Ridley, human-made global climate change sceptic.
Peter, you would get a lot more respect if you stopped referring to well known denier sites and refuse to look at real science.
These site you refer to are well known for deliberately spreading lies and disinformation. The fact that you do so on a regular basis means that you will be continually referred to as a denier. Please go and read some science papers, they are not too difficult to locate.
Ian (Forrester), I quote you from 2008 QUOTE: While the deniers can tell their lies and spread their fraudulent tactics openly in the mass media and blog-sphere, they know that if they say the same things under oath in a court of law they will be charged with a very serious crime, perjury, which has very serious consequences, namely, spending time at one of Her Majesty’s motels for the criminally inclined. UNQUOTE. You must have had a premonition of “Climategate”.
Best regards, Pete R
Ian, another of your relevant to “Climategate” QUOTE: Any scientist who purposely misrepresents scientific consensus is neither skeptical nor a denier, he is a liar. UNQUOTE. Plenty more if you want them!
Peter, there is a difference between what I say and you say. Can you understand that what you keep on citing is not science?
If you think it is science then you are writing on the wrong blog since this is a science site. Some people may be more lenient on you but I’m afraid I have lost patience with deniers who continually slander scientists and accuse them of fraud.
Any sane person can see the difference between science and propaganda.
Ian, Internet blogs are crammed with your rants and insults. I refer you to my comments on our exchanges on Chris’s ” CONSEQUENCES OF BEING OVER-CONCERNED” thread
14th Nocember @14.12 and on 15th November 1 @ 05:55 at
If you wish to rant and exchange childish insults then join in the discussion on Senator Fielding’s thread as I suggested back in November. I do not propose to respond to any more of your childish comments here.
Hello Pete;
Rates of sea level rise vary with specific locations due to the influence of winds and currents. This is similar to the situation we see with temperatures. Short term local trends can be misleading. So, to avoid cherry picking data, it is best to focus on the global average.
The IPCC states in the Technical Summary of the Science Basis that the global average rate of sea level rise measured by TOPEX/Poseidon satellite altimetry during 1993 to 2003 is 3.1 (+-0.7) mm/year. Over the 1961 to 2003 period, the average rate of global mean sea level rise is estimated from tide gauge data to be 1.8 (+-0.5) mm/year. So, there appears to be a slight acceleration in the rate of global sea level rise.
However, what is interesting is to compare this rate to the rate at which global temperatures are rising. Again, we should not cherry pick. While 1998 was a warm year, observed that 1997 and 1999 were both substantially cooler. So, it is just plain misleading to chose 1998 as the starting point to draw a trend.
Again according to the IPCC, human influence on the climate started to be greater than natural variations since the 1950’s and since 1950’s, global temperatures have risen about 0.013C/year. However, 1960/70’s were relatively stable temperatures because cooling from aerosols was just about as significant as warming from CO2 and CH4.
Aerosols are not expected to continue to rise and have actually stabilized since the 1970’s. So, I consider the actual rate of warming to be based on how much warming there is since the 1970’s, which amounts to about 0.016C/year. This is a 30 year trend, so it’s not cherry picking.
Now, that said, the mid-Pliocene was a warm period about 3 million years ago. During that time, global temperatures and sea levels were both significantly greater than they are currently. However, when one compares the rate of warming (either 0.016 or 0.013C/year), it is apparent that we will reach mid-Pliocene like temperatures (3.6C warmer than current) far sooner than we will reach the comparable sea levels (35 meters higher).
Of course, there is no reason why we should reach mid-Pliocene sea levels to be initially reached at the same time that we reach those temperatures. After all, we know that ice melts in response to warming temperatures.
The IPCC has published their findings over the years and will continue to update the science basis. However, what they have published over the last 20 years or so, is consistent that rising CO2 levels result in global warming.
Of course, it’s entirely possible that there is some global conspiracy going on, but it’d have to include the people that study birds and butterflies and publish hardiness zones for gardens because they have all noticed a shift in the climate. It’d also have to include the people that recorded historically how much ice there is on the great lakes, because right now, in the dead of winter after the coldest January in 15 years, there is no ice (at least on Lake Ontario) while I’ve heard that back in the 1970’s there were people that drove cars across to Canada.
Andrew, may I suggest a possible error in your QUOTE: The IPCC has published their findings over the years and will continue to update the science basis. However, what they have published over the last 20 years or so, is consistent that rising CO2 levels result in global warming. UNQUOTE. It could equally be that the IPCC, being part of the UN’s propaganda machine, simply cherry-picks papers that appear to support The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis in support of its real agenda. Since all of the “gate” exposures (with more to come I am sure) the IPCC may not exist for much longer. There is a hint that the next global climate change report (from whatever source) will not exclude the arguments of the thousands of sceptical scientists who have been gagged by the IPCC’s supporters. This next report will hopefully concentrate on science undistorted by political influence and we do not want the present IPCC model under another title.
You also have cherry-picked items supporting your belief that global mean sea levels are rising at 3mm per year. I accept that the satellite measurements give an estimated rate of rise over the past 15 years or so is about 3mm/year (Note 1), but is that exceptional? Let me do a little cherry picking using those less reliable tide-gauge measurements. According to Simon Holgate of the U.K.’s Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory (Note 5) during the period 1910 to 2000 the rate of change of mean global sea level has cycled between +6 and –2 mm/year. In comparing the satellite and tide-gauge measurements, the Worldclimatereport says QUOTE: Notice that the in the past couple of years .. the rate of sea level rise has apparently slowed a bit. …. We calculate the running 10-year trends in sea level as observed from satellites, and append it to the running 10-yr trends in sea level derived by Holgate.. the satellite trends .. seem to fit squarely into the pattern of long-term fluctuations. And further more, they have been declining! UNQUOTE. Have a read.
So rather than evidence of accelerating sea level rise in recent years, what we have is nothing more than the same type of variation that has been going on for at least 100 years. It was merely a coincidence that the satellites began observing the sea level rise during a natural upswing in the rate of sea level rise, that has now turned into a downswing—a behavior that has repeated itself a good half-dozen times during the past century.
You say that QUOTE: however, 1960/70’s were relatively stable temperatures UNQUOTE. Based upon those questionable GISS surface measurements the 1880-2010’s were relatively stable (–0.4C to +0.6C – Note 2). Based upon the much more reliable satellite measurements the 1980/90/2010 have been relatively stable also (-0.3C to +0.5C – Note 3). Cherry-picking another piece of temperature information, the period from 0AD to 2000AD has been a period of relatively stable global mean temperatures (-0.8C to +0.6C – Note 4). Because of that relative stability, humanity has flourished, economies have expanded, people have become more wealthy and live much more comfortable lives (especially the privileged few). Isn’t it wonderful that we continue to enjoy such stable conditions. Long may it last, but if it doesn’t then what humanity will have to do is what it always has done in the past, adapt to changing conditions. We do not understand enough about those horrendously complex climate processes and drivers to predict what the different global climates will do let alone control them.
What has your closing comment about ice on Lake Ontario to do with climate change? As I recall it was in 1967 that I stood enthralled looking at the ice columns that were Niagara Falls. 2 years later I was equally enthralled looking at the water pouring over them. In 1976 we had the most serious drought in the UK for decades, with unheard of wall-to-wall sunshine for months and one of the mildest winters ever, but that’s not climate!
NOTES:
1) see http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
2) see http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
3) see http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
4) see http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/
5) see http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/07/22/sea-level-rise-an-update-shows-a-slowdown/
Best regards, Pete R.
I have tried 3 times to post a comment but each time I receive a message that my comment has been discarded. Are there terms that automatically reject a comment?
Response– Not that I am aware of, but I haven’t run into any of your comments in moderation– chris
Bob A, I had the same problem until I removed/changed the links.
Pete
I have tried to find papers on molecular-size dependency of gas fractionation in firn to see if we can sort this out. I have found one so far, it is called:
“Evidence for molecular size dependent gas fractionation in firn air
derived from noble gases, oxygen, and nitrogen measurements”
by
C. Huber, U. Beyerle, M. Leuenberger, J. Schwander, R. Kipfer, R. Spahni J.P. Severinghaus, K. Weiler
and published in
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 243 (2006) 61–73
Their conclusions are;
“Close-off fractionation factors for different gases depend strongly on the diameter. The mass of the molecule is less important, since the effect on isotope ratios is very low. The critical size of about 3.6 Å seems to be an upper limit up to which molecules fractionate during the close-off process in the firn. A possible explanation for this could be the diffusion of molecules
through channels in the ice lattice. From our findings we believe that the effect of close-off fractionation is nonexistent or at least very small for isotope ratios and for large molecules, like Xe, Kr, N2, CO2, CH4, and
N2O. This is an important confirmation for the integrity of polar ice cores as a climate archive of the ancient atmospheric composition of these gases.”
I followed the paper to some degree, but am not an expert in this area. Also, the authors acknowledge some limitations to the analysis and observations. Will search for more papers on this topic. In the meantime, hope that helps.
regards
James
Hmmm, I wanted to comment on Zbigniew Jaworowski but the comment keeps getting discarded.
Jaworowski’s concerns about the ice core gas record have been addressed in the scientific literature, for example:
Raynaud, D., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.M., Chappellaz, J., Delmas, R.J. and Lorius, C., 1993. The Ice Record of Greenhouse Gases. Science, 259(5097): 926-934.
Gulluk, T., Slemr, F. and Stauffer, B., 1998. Simultaneous measurements of CO2, CH4, and N2O in air extracted by sublimation from Antarctica ice cores: Confirmation of the data obtained using other extraction techniques. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 103(D13): 15971-15978.
It appears that I couldn’t post the URLs of the web sites that refute Jaworowski’s claims…
More important, Chris was correct in his comment on your post of 29 December, 2009 in noting that Jaworowski’s claims have been thoroughly refuted in more accessible fora, for example, at:
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=12
suvratk.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-should-i-convince-friends-about.html
Jaworowski’s presentation of an offset between ice core data and the Mauna Loa record in Figure 2 of the document linked to Note 3 in your post on 2 February 2010 looks like it fails to account for the gas close-off depth, thus making it incorrect and misleading. Is this the 83 year offset you mention when you refer to “data manipulation and that arbitrary shifting of the record by 83 years?”
Last, the inflammatory rhetoric of Jaworowski’s document is not that of an objective presentation. Scientific argumentation should aim to avoid subjectivity, when it does not, it appears to be in pursuit of a political agenda rather than of aiming to understand a scientific question.
b
My previous message was chopped up because of problems submitting the text. It was in response to comments by Pete Ridely on the writings of Zbigniew Jaworowski.
PS: Bob A, we have already commented on those earlier papers and they do not resolve the uncertainty about the extent of close-off fractionation. Why refer to them again. I have looked at them and could find nothing conclusive about the relative sizes of the various gas molecules and that to me is fundamental. If you spotted something that I missed then please quote it or give me a direct reference to the section/page in the paper that I missed. Please bear in mind that I am not prepared top pay top see any paper.
Best regards, Pete R.
James (Claridge) thanks for trying to help on this. That particular point was made by Bob A on 20th January and I responded on 22nd. It all comes back to what are the sizes of those molecules. As I understand it they are not fixed in size and are not necessarily spherical. This is what needs to be resolved.
Best regards, Pete R
Hi Pete
Sorry about the duplication, I didn’t go the back through the thread. However, I think the paper cited may answer your question. It quotes a collision diameter in Table 2, which shows CO2 at 3.9A. Even if the not correct in absolute terms, it shows CO2 being larger than both N2 and O2 collision diameters, which is what I would expect from first principles. On this basis, surely any fractionation that would occur (and the amounts even for small atoms like He and Ne are small, of the order of 2% to 10%) would be less for CO2 than O2 and N2 and so the distortion, if any, should be opposite to what you are proposing.
Another way to look at the molecule size is to add up the bond lengths and diameters of the atoms concerned. But even at first glance you would have to think that CO2 would be bigger than O2 given that it is linear and has an additional atom in it. Simlarly for N2. But if you would like some numbers, here are some:
Bond length (internuclear); O-O = 1.21A, N-N = 1.1A, C-O = 1.16A
Atomic radii (covalent): O = 0.6A N = 0.65A C= 0.6A
Therefore if we add up the relevant pieces for each molecule (which I am sure is not strictly correct in absolute terms but might give us a relative comparison) we get:
O2 = !.21 + 0.6 + 0.6 = 2.41A (one bond plus two radii)
N2 = 1.1 + 0.65 + 0.65 = 2.4A (one bond plus two radii)
CO2 = 1.16 + 1.16 + 0.6 + 0.6 = 3.52A (two bonds plus two radii)
Figures from
National Physical Laboratory at
http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/chemistry/3_7/3_7_3.html
and
J. C. Slater (1964), Journal of Chemical Physics, volume 41, page 3199 as reproduced in wikipedia at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_radius
As noted above, this probably isn’t quite right in absolute terms, but might suggest that CO2 is significantly larger than N2 or O2. Indeed, slight difference in electronegativity notwithstanding CO2 has three atoms (including 2 Os) and two bonds and is linear, compared to O2 and N2 which have only two atoms and one bond (all broadly similar in size). Surely then, CO2 would be less susceptible to fractionation than O2 or N2 (and the paper above suggests that actually none of these is subject to fractionation).
Hope that helps
James
James (Claridge) thanks for you further efforts on this and I’ll look more closely at what you have said. The research paper you refer to is only one paper on this vexed subject. There are other papers and practical examples indicating that the CO2 molecule appears to be smaller than N2 and O2. I referred previously to the practical application of this fractionation to separate CH4 out of the air in disused mines. There is also the “Production of Pipeline-Quality Natural Gas with The Molecular Gate CO2 Removal Process” (Note 1) which describes a production system used to extract “nitrogen (3.6 angstrom)” and the co-removal of carbon dioxide (3.4 Angstroms)“. The “MOLECULAR GATE® ADSORPTION SYSTEM FOR THE REMOVAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND / OR NITROGEN FROM COALBED AND COAL MINE METHANE” quotes sizes as:
– “Nitrogen and methane molecular diameters are approximately 3.6 angstroms and 3.8 angstroms, respectively”,
– “Carbon dioxide is an even smaller molecule than nitrogen at 3.3 angstroms” and
– “Oxygen is also a small molecule at about 3.5 angstroms”.
These sizes are used in a practical application to produce pipeline quality natural gas (mainly methane). It these sizes work in practice then this suggests to me that the are reasonable accurate, considering that the membrane hole size is set at 3.7 angstroms. I recall that this company even offers a variable hole size system for selective extraction of particular gases. I have E-mailed the company for further information on the sizes hat it uses.
There is another aspect of this that I will also be looking at, to do with QUOTE: The gas solubility of polymers reported in Table 3 shows the following order: CO2 > CH4 > O2 > N2. This order is similar to condensability of gases and the condensability itself is related to the molecular interactions and solubility of gas molecules in polymers. UNQUOTE. This comes from “Effect of Chain Extender Length on Gas Permeation Properties of Polyurethane Membranes” (Note 2)
NOTES:
1) see http://www.moleculargate.com/carbon-dioxide-co2-removal/Pipeline-Quality-Natural-Gas-SPEarticle.html
2) see http://journal.ippi.ac.ir/manuscripts/IPJ-2008-06-3120.pdf
James (Claridge), I have had an initial response to my E-mail from one of the practitioners in the petroleum industry involving the preferential fractionation of CO2 etc. through tiny holes. Michael Mitariten of Guild Associates Inc. (Note 1), advises QUOTE:
Unfortunately there is no definitive size of gas molecules. In effect there is an “electron cloud” which is interpreted as the size of the molecule but given the atomic scale one can’t point to a defined size and as you see
various sizes are reported in the literature. UNQUOTE:
I’ve asked him to comment on the theory that you posted so hope that he is interested enough to do so. After all, he has years of practical experience using this technology in the real world outside academia. There is an interesting 2008 EPA report (Note 2) “Upgrading Drained Coal Mine Methane to Pipeline Quality: A Report on the Commercial Status of System Suppliers” summarising the molecular gate principles (Fig. 1) and numerous (25?) Guild Associates installations in operation in the USA purifying coal mine methane (See Table 2). A quick scan of the rest of that report indicates that O2 is more difficult to remove than either N2 or CO2 (easiest), which suggest to me that O2 is (generally/usually/on average?) larger than the others.
Looking more closely I find (Page 14) that QUOTE: The Molecular Gate system .. uses molecular sieves with pore size of 3.7 angstroms, nitrogen and methane molecular diameters being approximately 3.6 angstroms and 3.8 angstroms, respectively. This adsorbent permits nitrogen and the much smaller CO2 (3.3 angstroms) and O2 (3.5 angstroms) molecules to enter the pore and be adsorbed while excluding the methane, which passes through the fixed bed of adsorbent at essentially the same pressure as the feed. One major advantage of the process is that the CO2 is completely removed in a single step being much smaller in size, while the nitrogen and oxygen are removed to pipeline specifications. Water is also a small molecule and adsorbs strongly; typically, the system is designed to remove water so the feed is pre-dehydrated to moderate levels. UNQUOTE.
I’m starting to view these CO2 molecules as something like a teenie-weenie, rather soft sausage-shaped balloon and wonder how several of these would perform inside a block of ice over hundreds of years. Is anyone aware of any relevant experiments?
NOTES:
1) see http://www.moleculargate.com/
2) see http://www.moleculargate.com/gas-separation-news/EPA-430-97-012_COAL_MINE_METHANE_UPGRADES.pdf
Best regards, Pete R.
Pete R
Interesting figures, though there appear to be some contradictions amongst them (one set implies O2 is larger than N2, the other set implies the other way round.
Re the indeterminate size of molecules with their electron clouds, that is taken as read. As I understand it, rlectrons can occupy a range of energy levels, corresponding to a range of distances from the nuclei. Furthermore they can move between levels and ultimately we can only ever apply some sort of probability distribution as to which levels they occupy at any time (except perhaps when we can be sure that they are in their ground state at absolute zero??) However, for all practical purposes (i.e. in this case whether they can pass through an opening) I presume that for a given temperature there is some notional average size. Of course, other factors may come into play like the electrical charge distribution on the molecule and the overall geometry. Having said that, I am at a loss as to how adding a carbon atom (C)to an oxygen molecule (O2) to produce CO2 (in effect, I know it doesn’t happen like that in process) can result in an overall smaller molecule (notwithstanding a difference, albeit small, in electronegativity between C and O). I don’t think we can go much further with this. The original paper on molecular fractionation in ice cores indicated that fractionation was modest even for small, inert, non-polar atoms He and Ne. Seems likely therefore that IF it occurs for CO2 more than for O2 and N2 (it is the relativity that matters), then both the relative and absolute amount will likely be small and unlikely to account for the effect you are describing. What do you think?
Finally, could you explain your concerns regarding the modern CO2 record taken from Mauna Loa?
Thanks
kind regards
James
James (Claridge), thanks again for the comments. Although there is scientific uncertainty about the sizes of the various molecules there is no uncertainty about whether or not the molecular sieve system does the job of removing CO2 more easily than O2 or N2. Even if O2 is smaller than CO2 it appears from practical working experience of molecular sieves that CO2 fractionates more easily through those tiny (3.7 angstrom) holes. There is no reason to believe that it is any different in those porous ice sheets. N2 (78% of the atmosphere?) would have a harder job fractionating through the channels in the ice than either O2 (21%) or CO2 (0.03%), hence CO2 will fractionate from the higher pressure (lower) region towards the lower pressure (upper) region. When (or if) complete close-off does occur, the lower level concentration of CO2 will have been reduced and the higher level enhanced, just as Jaworowski said. Variations in concentration over time within the atmosphere will not be completely removed, only reduce in amplitude, the extent of this depending upon the time taken to reach close-off.
The experiments by scientists that have been referenced above do support Jaworowski’s argument that the close-off fractionation effect takes place but none were specifically investigating the fractionation of CO2. Since this is such an important factor that needs to be resolve I am surprised that this research hasn’t been or isn’t being undertaken and believe that it should be done in order to reduce the uncertainty that exists. A conspiracy theorist might suggest that this is because if the theory is shown to be correct then it seriously undermines the UN’s IPCC position. Under those circumstances, funding would not be made available and publication of results would be resisted. All of those IPCC-gates being exposed recently indicate that there may be some validity in the conspiracy theory after all.
My concerns about the Mauna Loa record are the same as those held by other sceptics:
1) derived from measurement at a location on an active volcano,
2) statistical manipulations that are carried out on the raw data,
3) arbitrarily using those results to arrive at an assumed age of air in ice cores.
4) assumption that measurements at that location are representative of global mean concentration levels.
A contributor to an article “On the scepticism of causality” (Note 1) puts it succinctly QUOTE: Mike on 08th November 2009: The ice core data was made to fit Mauna Loa by assuming the age of the air in the bubbles were 83 years younger than the ice it was trapped in. There is no scientific basis for this assumption. It is also true that data at Mauna Loa must be corrected for volcanic activity nearby, which introduces the possibility of bias. Callendar rejected more than 69% from 90,000 measurements ranging from 250 to 550ppm. Without such selection the 19th century data compiled by Callendar averaged 335ppm. .. If Jaworoski and those 90,000 direct chemical measurements are wrong, and CO2 levels have been flat for 2000 years before the industrial revolution despite the medieval warm period and little ice age, then this proves that CO2 has no discernable effect on temperature and climate. UNQUOTE.
NOTE 1) see http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/on_the_scepticism_of_causality/
Best regards, Pete R
Peter Ridley, you are confusing molecular sieves with filters. In a molecular sieve the small molecules are adsorbed within the sieve’s porous interior. Large molecules are excluded and pass through. That is how CO2 is fractionated in molecular sieves, the CO2 molecules are too big to get into the pore structure unlike the nitrogen and oxygen molecules and are passed through while the oxygen and nitrogen (and other small molecules) are retained.
Molecular sieves work on inclusion and exclusion, not on the ability to pass through a membrane as is the case with filtration, large molecules pass through the bed, smaller molecules are retained. The selectivity depends on the pore size.
Hi Pete
I don’t know anything about molecular sieves other than what I read on the website you provided. However, I was going to say that adsorption (the mechanism by which fractionation occurs with the molecular sieve, as described) is quite different to passage of molecules through a pore. Ian Forrester seems to be knowledgeable on this and has expressed this far more eloquently than I ever could. What he said seems to agree with the description on the website (as to the mechanism) and would seem to be consistent with my interpretation of the relative molecule sizes based on fundamental physical quantities (bond lengths etc) as per my previous email. Thus I still don’t believe that CO2 is smaller. In addition, I’ll repeat a point in my previous email: the ice-core fractionation paper indicates that fractionation was not substantial even for inert, monatomic gases He and Ne, so I am still very doubtful that it is significant for CO2 (in absolute terms and relative to N2 and O2). Remian to be convinced on this one.
Regarding CO2 measurements, I note that there are other sources of CO2 observations apart from Mauna Loa. In particular, try;
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#global
It shows CO2 measurements averaged over a globally distributed network of marine surface air sampling sites. It agrees closely with Mauna Loa over the period for which data has been collected (at three decades, not quite as extensive as Muana Loa but sufficient to corroborate the Mauna Loa measurements). Check it out.
Kind regards
James
PS I am ignoring all references to political/emotional aspects of AGW hypothesis (in either direction), unless they can be proven to directly invalidate any of the observations/data/papers that we are referring to. For the purposes of this post I am just interested in exploring the science a little further (hopefully with an impartial view, but that is rarely possible).
Ian (Forrester) thanks for responding in a constructive (rather than in your usual insulting) manner. I stand corrected. I did inadvertently say “there is no uncertainty about whether or not the molecular SIEVE system does the job of removing CO2 UNQUOTE when I should have said “there is no uncertainty about whether or not the molecular GATE system does the job of removing CO2”. If I misled anyone other than Ian then I am sorry. The molecular gate technology used in those practical systems is different completely from that used in a molecular sieve – no disagreement there.
James (Claridge), thanks again for the comments and the link, which I have looked at before but will revisit to see if there is any indication of the degree of data manipulation.
Best regards, Pete R
Hi Pete
Not sure about your last post regarding regarding the Molecular Gate technology as being different completely from a molecular sieve:
1) Molecular Gate is a name (indeed it is trademarked) and not necessarily a a generic description of the technology
2) Their website, says the following:
“The Molecular Gate adsorbent used at Hamilton Creek facility is from a new family of titanium silicate molecular sieves”
“The system offers a new route for the removal of bulk levels of carbon dioxide using proprietary adsorbent that has a high affinity for carbon dioxide while having a low capacity for methane”.
Both quotations can be found at:
http://www.moleculargate.com/carbon-dioxide-co2-removal/Pipeline-Quality-Natural-Gas-SPEarticle.html
They suggest to me that the technology is indeed a type of molecular sieve, which is based on adsorption and relies, at least in part, on some degree of affinity between the molecules and the adsorbent surface (eg polar bonds, unpaired electrons etc – I am guessing these, since not an expert). At least, this is what they are saying at the source of the info you are quoting. Thus, I am assuming tha Ian’s comments are still valid, unless you can demonstrate otherwise. Surely we would need to know much more about the Molecular Gate process before we could draw any inferences as to its relevance in the fractionation of CO2 in ice cores.
Let me know when you have something on this and also any issues with the other sources of global CO2 levels.
kind regards
James
It would appear to be an adsorbe
IMPORTANT
Mr Pete Ridley willingly admitted (http://bloodwoodtree.org/2009/12/16/not-so-wonderful-copenhagen/) that he spent four hours on the net hunting down my last name along with the names of my wife and children, photos of them and their activities, He also made it clear that he had contacts close to where I live. All of this was presented in a friendly “be more careful” kind of tone and was about as comforting as finding that someone had broken into your house and left a note in your child’s bedroom saying “you should check the kids more often”.
People will find photos of your kids if there are any out there in newspapers, on Facebook etc. But when someone deliberately searches for them because they are angry and use it to win an argument, that person is demonstrating sociopathic behaviour. I encourage you to report immediately to the administrator if Pete Ridley starts pushing you for more information about yourself or using this to argue with. Don’t fall for the con “I want to understand you to debate you”. Debate with facts and use reason, that’s all that’s needed.
Response– That is slightly creepy and disturbing, but you are quite right that the “I just want to learn more” act is just that…-chris
Thanks for posting this.
Don’t have any ready advice on how to handle
such a situation, but when I do I’ll share it.
James (Claridge) and others, I’ve had further clarification about the molecular gate (seive) technology being used commercially for removing unwanted gases from hydrocarbons like natural gas based upon those different molecule sizes. I copy some of it here but please note that it talks about “aDsorption” not “aBsorption” and that I have added (Note)s on what I see as relevant to ice core reconstructions.
QUOTE: A Molecular Sieve is a crystal that has pores (my note: isn’t glacier ice “a crystal that has pores”) that permit certain molecules to enter to be aDsorbed to the surface of the aDsorbent and in a reversible system these molecules are removed – either by reducing the pressure (Pressure swing aDsorption) of heating the bed (Thermal swing aDsorption). UNQUOTE.
From “Zeolite/Molecular Sieve Purification” (Note 1) QUOTE:
Adsorption, the binding of molecules or particles to a surface, must be distinguished from Absorption, the filling of pores in a solid. The binding to the solid is usually weak and reversible. The adsorption process involves nothing more than the preferential partitioning of the substances from the gaseous or liquid phase onto the surface of a solid substrate.
Adsorption, also known as adsorptive separation, can be simply defined as the concentration of a solute, which may be molecules in a gas stream or a dissolved or suspended substance in a liquid stream, on the surface of a solid. The adsorptive separation is achieved by one of three mechanisms: steric, kinetic or equilibrium effects. The steric effect derives from the molecular sieving property of zeolites. In this case only small and properly shaped molecules can diffuse into the adsorbent, whereas other molecules are totally excluded. Kinetic separation is achieved by the virtue of the difference in diffusion rates of different molecules. A large majority of processes separate through the equilibrium adsorption of the mixture and hence are called Equilibrium separation processes.
The phenomenon of adsorption is essentially an attraction of adsorbate molecules to an adsorbent surface. The preferential concentration of molecules in the proximity of a surface arises because the surface forces of an adsorbent solid are unsaturated. Both repulsive and attractive forces become balanced when adsorption occurs. Adsorption is nearly always an exothermic process. We can distinguish between two types of adsorption process depending on which of these two force types plays the bigger role in the process. Adsorption processes can be classified as either physical adsorption (van der Waals adsorption) or chemisorption (activated adsorption) depending on the type of forces between the adsorbate and the adsorbent.
Physical adsorption is caused mainly by van der Waals forces ad electrostatic forces between adsorbate molecules and the atoms, which compose the adsorbent surface. Thus adsorbents are characterized by surface properties such as surface area and polarity. A large specific surface area is preferable for providing large adsorption capacity, but the creation of a large internal surface area in a limited volume inevitably gives rise to large numbers of small sized pores between adsorption surfaces. The size of micro pores determines the accessibility of adsorbate molecules to the internal adsorption surface, so the pore size distribution of micro pores is another important property of characterizing adsorptivity of adsorbents.
Chemisorption involves electron transfer and is essentially two-dimensional chemical reaction. In this type of adsorption, the chemistry of adsorbate is of central importance. In a particular system both types of adsorption may occur as well as intermediate types. The solids best suited to adsorption are very porous, and have very large effective surface areas.
The selection of proper sorbent for a given separation is a complex problem. The predominant scientific basis for sorbent selection is the equilibrium isotherm. The equilibrium isotherms of all constituents in the gas mixture, in the temperature and pressure range of operation, must be considered. As a first and possibly over simplified approximation, the pure gas isotherms may be considered additive to yield the adsorption from a mixture. Based on the isotherms, the following factors that are important to the design of the separation can be estimated:
* Capacity of sorbent, in operating temperature and pressure range
* The method of sorbent regeneration
* The length of unused bed
* The product purities
UNQUOTE.
I shall contact Johnson Matthey on this but can anyone point to any research that has been directed at determining the adsorption properties of ice during the slow growth of a glacier?
NOTES:
1) see http://pureguard.net/cm/Library/Zeolite_Molecular_Sieve_Purification.html
Regards, Pete R
Hi Pete
Indeed, much as I suspected. You will note from my previous email that I am fully aware that it is an adsorbent process and indeed I presumed that electron attractions of some type (eg Van der Waal forces) came into the equation when dealing with attractions of molecules to the adsorbent surface (see previous email).
I’m afraid this is now getting too remote from the original topic and beyond my technical abilities. I’ll have to leave you to it, but will be sure to check the “literature” every now and then to see if you produce some solid evidence that the conclusions drawn from the ice-core observations are invalid. Until then I will assume that they are OK.
Good luck.
regards
James
A meaningless off topic comment irrelevant to Richard Alley’s presentation.
James, thanks for your efforts so far. It all helps. If you do come across anything relevant then please let me know. Your comment “too remote from the original topic ” surprises me so see my response to Andrew.
Andrew, I’m puzzled by your comment. The article says of Alley’s presentation “It is concerning the role of CO2 on climate over geologic time.” and in his presentation Alley himself refers to the reconstruction of atmospheric CO2 concentration from air trapped in ice cores as “The Gold Standard”, based upon the assumption that the concentrations of various gases trapped air experience negligible change. I should have thought it rather relevant if those assumptions are found to be invalid, as Professor Jaworowski clains.
Best regards, Pete R
Hi Pete
Probably my wording – “too remote from the original topic” was inappropriate regarding the description of molecular sieves. What I am really trying to say is that I have absolutely no idea as to whether the mechanics of molecular sieves has any implications for the existence or otherwise of relative fractionation of CO2 in ice-cores and I have neither the time nor expertise to pursue this further. At the end of the day I am happy to let the process of science take its course. That is, I will continue to presume that the best knowledge we have to date of historic CO2 levels, as determined by ice-core analysis, is as per the presently accepted scientific literature. Could this be wrong” Of course it could be! Some reasons might be:
1) Errors in the model i.e. in the reasoning/logic/assumptions etc
2) Errors in the data (measurement and recording)
3) Errors in calculations (model and data OK but calculations are wrong, so results are not correct)
4) Undetermination i.e. the model, data and calculations are OK but any number of other models would also fit the data
5) Deliberate maniuplation of model, data or calculations i.e. “errors with intent”
However, untill evidence is presented that some of these errors/problems are present in the existing ice-core literature, I will assume they are OK. Now, you may be onto something that indeed indicates errors/problems in the existing literature. If you believe this strongly enough then perhaps you could pursue some experimental research or theoretical evidence to this effect. As I understand it, there are loads of scientists and other parties who do not accept the present AGW hypothesis. Could you perhaps gather some of them together to provide the necessary expertise and funding to pursue this? There must be some experiments or other existing literature that would help us understand fractionation and the behaviour of CO2 in relation to firn/ice.
Look forward to hearing the results of your research.
regards
James
On CO2 vs. O2 sizes: an answer from a friendly rabett:
“Molecular size is one of those things that has multiple answers. A common way is to determine a “kinetic diameter” by measuring permiation through a membrane. By that measure CO2 (330 pm), is smaller than O2 (346 pm) and N2 (364 pm). A nice discussion of this dealing with separation of CO2 from air can be found in this paper [original post linked to http://www.bentham.org/cheng/samples/cheng%201-1/Sandra%20E.%20Kentish.pdf%5D
While the separation between the two oxygen nuclei is greater in CO2 than in O2, remember that O2 has a triplet ground state, with two unpaired electrons, while CO2 is a singlet. On the other hand, what is the point being made?”
Having said that, Pete Ridley is still wrong on almost everything else. For example, he doubts the Mauna Loa record: Here are my responses to:
1) derived from measurement at a location on an active volcano,
2) statistical manipulations that are carried out on the raw data,
4) assumption that measurements at that location are representative of global mean concentration levels.
a) data are corrected in order to compensate for being at a volcano (eg, when wind comes from certain direction): however, all the raw data is available at the Mauna Loa website, and even before the corrections, the concentration still shows consistent trends over time.
b) all other appropriate (eg, far from sources/sinks) locations measure similar CO2 concentrations to Mauna Loa. This includes the AIRS satellite: http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=205 which shows less than a 10 ppm variation around the globe.
On point 3, in fact, the “age shifting” to match ice cores and atmospheric measurements isn’t arbitrary, it has to do with how long it takes for air pockets to close.
-Marcus
People may have their pet theories on molecular sieves, but as Dr Alley stated, ice cores are the Gold Standard of CO2 Paleobarometers.
Air bubbles with CO2 remains frozen in ice and does not move with melt water. Oldest good ice core is 800,000 years and CO2 values in various ice cores have been verified correct to about 450,000 years. Ice cores match instrumented records very well and are used to gauge other measurements systems.
All CO2 records beyond 800,000 years depend on indirect measurements.
None of which are any where nears as good as ice cores and therefore need to be checked very carefully.
These include:
C12:C13 ratios in alkenones for plants
B11:Ca in shells from CO2 influence on ocean acid.
and Leaf Stomata
An area of active research in paleo CO2 levels is the Miocene. No ice cores available for that time period. The other CO2 measurments for that period are not consistent and have not been verified correct; so the science is not settled and more work needs to be done.
James, thanks again for your efforts so far. If you do happen across anything relevant then please let me know. I contacted the UK office for Johnson Matthey but they could not help so I’ll get on to their head office.
Marcus, thanks for the information and the link. I’ll take a look and get back. I don’t challenge the claim that CO2 levels are increasing. I’d expect that to happen, since I understand that sea surface temperatures are rising so CO2 rise would follow that rise (more CO2 emitted by the sea due to reduced solubility)? Ex- NASA scientist Roy Spencer’s articles on this are worth reading (Note 1 & 2). I also enjoyed his 1st Jan. 2009 comment on this topic (Note 3).
On the determination of the age of air in the ice, “Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations” by Fischer, et. al. (Note 4) suggests a fair degree of uncertainty, saying QUOTE: The uncertainty of Dage varies between 100 and 300 years for central Greenland UNQUOTE. Perhaps you are aware of something more definitive.
Andrew, just because Alley says that reconstruction from ice cores are the “gold standard” does not make it so. I have searched for any research papers by him on gas fractionation and find only 2 (Note 5 & 6) but if you know of more then please advise. The first only considers the preferential fractionation of isotopes of the same gas. The second considers the preferential fractionation of the different gases with respect to each other, N2, O2, He, Ne, Ar, Kr and Xe but makes no mention of CO2. It says QUOTE: whereas for diameters greater than about 3.6 Å the fractionation seems to be significantly smaller or even negligible UNQUOTE (Bob A, Marcus and I discussed this here last month). The molecular gate systems being used commercially for purifying mine gas by removing the gases like CO2 with smaller molecules indicate that CO2 falls into the category (3.2 Å?) which would experience preferential fractionation over N2 and O2.. That paper does acknowledge that QUOTE: An explanation for this size dependent fractionation process could be gas diffusion through the ice lattice UNQUOTE, which is the point that Professor Jaworowski makes and which I am researching. I don’t see that anything in your comment relates to this. Perhaps you ‘d like to explain how it does.
NOTES:
1) see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/
2) see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/double-whammy-friday-roy-spencer-on-how-oceans-are-driving-co2/
3) see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/50-years-of-co2-time-for-a-vision-test/
4) see http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/IceCoreRecords2.pdf
5) see http://homologa.ambiente.sp.gov.br/proclima/artigos_dissertacoes/dissertacoes_ingles/timingofabruptclimatechange.pdf
6) see http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V61-4J8JVSN-3&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F15%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1214004043&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c14c18b71fc8e21f4726359a1b661bc1 Evidence for molecular size dependent gas fractionation in firn air derived from noble gases, oxygen, and nitrogen measurements
Best regards, Pete R
Ridely said:
WOW, did you ever get that wrong. The oceans are still sequestering CO2 from the air. The reason the CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing is because we are emitting more from the combustion of fossil fuels than the oceans can remove.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml
Looks like PR is a confirmed Dunning Kruger sufferer (don’t worry mate there are lots of you around, just check some of the other threads on this site).
Pete;
You seem to be totally missing Dr Alley’s point on why ice core are the “Gold standard.”
Just because he wrote some papers about gas fractionation doesn’t mean that his comments were based on that work. Instead, he was referring to how well they matched direct atmospheric measurements especially compared to all the other methods. In other words, of all the different CO2 barometers, ice core are clearly the best.
So, if you truly feel that another CO2 barometer is a better “Gold Standard”, then perhaps you could share with us which one it is.
Anyhow, keep in mind that despite the size of the CO2 molecule, it is much more reactive with water than N2, He, O2, Ne, Ar, Kr and Xe. With water it spontaneously interconverts between CO2 and H2CO3. So, it’s not like other gases.
Ian (Forrester), thanks very much for your comment. I expect much of you’re time is still taken posting your insults and sarcasm (but little of value) all over the Internet (Note 1). Despite that, your comment has been unintentionally helpful. Searching for your most recent Internet invective took me to some relevant comments on both age uncertainty for CO2 in ice and the possible causes of changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration (Note 2). It is very interesting reading those comments by Phil (not Phil Colose by any chance? – and I see a Marcus) and Bobo challenging your suggestions that CH4 release was causing CO2 increases (11th Jan). Phil even says QUOTE: if (by whatever scenario), N. hemisphere warming is ultimately driven by CO2-release from the vast S. oceans in response to S. latitude warming/reduced S-N hemisphere temperature gradients, UNQUOTE. Also, thingadonta says QUOTE: It seems to me to be the recent scientific fad to attribute everything to magical C02. C02 also lags changes in oceanic circulation because these drag down temperature which then drags down c02 due to increased solubulity with cooler water, whether on decadal, millenial or million year timescales UNQUOTE. There does appear to be some uncertainty about the effects of ocean outgassing of CO2, so I’ll put your “Dunning Kruger!” suggestion down to your own ignorance (and incompetence.
You surely agree that it was rather mean of you not to point me to that specific thread when you first joined in here (3rd Feb) since it does include comments about the ice core reconstructions. For example, Boba said QUOTE: Yes, the uncertainty in the overall age model for an ice core gets larger further back in time, as does the uncertainty in the difference between the ages of gas and of ice at any given depth. For those who aren’t familiar, at any given depth in an ice core the ice is at least a few hundred years, and sometimes a few thousand years, older than the gas. This is because gases diffuse through firn (packed snow) before it is sealed off as ice. The age offset between gas and ice increases as the accumulation rate of snow decreases. Therefore, the ice-gas age difference is much greater during ice ages, when there is less snow accumulation, than during interglacials. Uncertainty in the ice-gas age difference has been a big problem in establishing reliable lead-lag relationships between temperature and CO2. UNQUOTE. I’ll do a search on Boba as he/she may be able to help.
I see where your limited understanding of global climate processes and drivers comes from. Like mine, it is not original but comes from reading blogs and learning from others (I’ll look more closely at what is said in those comments. Perhaps we aren’t so different after all Ian. Frightening, isn’t it!
Andrew, I’m pleased that you do at least agree with me on CO2 that QUOTE: it’s not like other gases UNQUOTE, especially O2 and N2, hence my interest in this issue of preferential fractionation.
NOTES:
NB: BECAUSE OF PROBLEMS POSTNG THE URL’S I’VE REMOVED THE HTTP://
1) see scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/02/head_of_ipcc_writes_trashy_nov.php (3rd Feb with Neu Tral);
climateprogress.org/2010/01/25/un-scientist-refutes-daily-mail-claim-himalayan-glacier-2035-ipcc-mistake-not-politically-motivated/ (28th Jan);
greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/independent-statisticians-reject-global-cooling-fable/ (22nd Jan);
greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/denier-myths-debunked/ (4th ,5th & 6th Oct); etc. etc. etc.
2) see http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-does-CO2-lag-temperature.html (11th Jan)
Best regards, Pete R
Ridley, you are indeed a strange piece of work. Do you get a kick out of all this stalking you do? I’m sure psychologists will have a name for it.
Anyway, what you are trying to infer in your error riddled post is not what you think.
For example, in the posts on CO2 rising during deglaciation several hypotheses were raised. I raised another one, one which had not been discussed. Boba provided evidence that that hypothesis didn’t work. End of story, that is how science works, raise a question, test it to see if it works or not.
As for the diffence between me and you well I won’t get into that because you seem to be too thin-skinned for an accurate appraisal of your scientific ability.
I don’t get my science and climate science knowledge from blogs, I read texts books and refer to the original papers as any functioning scientist does. I have been a professional scientist for over 40 years now so I think I know what I am talking about, you don’t. Dunning Kruger seems to be pandemic these days.
Your posts on this blog show that you are seeking answers which support your biased and prejudiced views that AGW is not a problem. That is not what the science is saying so get over it.
Ian, with your 40 years as a professional scientist it is reasonable to expect that you have something to make available to demonstrate the level of your contribution to your chosen discipline. You know what I mean, such things as peer reviewed papers, involvement in your chosen learned society’s activities (at a scientific level), patents, etc. I have searched the Internet and only find contributions to climate change blogs. Your comments on those do no not demonstrate any particular level of expertise in any of the scientific disciplines involved in trying to understand climate processes and drivers. Can you help me out here – point me to somewhere where I can look at some evidence of this, otherwise I’ll continue to believe that all you are able to do is regurgitate what others tell you..
Thanks and best regards, Pete Ridley
PS: I have just have a look at an article (Note 1) in today’s American Thinker which claims that three peer-reviewed papers lead to the conclusion that QUOTE: So the results of three different peer-reviewed papers show that over a period of 36 years, there is no reduction of OLR emissions in wavelengths that CO2 absorb. Therefore, the AGW hypothesis is disproven. UNQUOTE.
The article provides links to the papers. Any experts here who’d like to comment?
NOTE 1) see http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html
Response: Yes, look at the papers they link for yourselves. This should be a good example and lesson in why the secondary sources you get information from are garbage.– chris
Stalker, stalker, why should I give you any information. You are one sick puppy. You know next to nothing about science, just check out your silly postings where you think you know everything there is to know about climate science but you are proven wrong time after time.
You should seek help matey, before you really cross the line.
Ian, too childish my friend. You’re showing your true colours now.
Best regards, Pete R
Peter Ridley is a complete moron. He quotes from denier sites without even reading the papers quoted by these deniers. Those papers directly contradict what Ridley says. Surprise, surprise.
Here are 3 quotes from Ridley’s paper which supposedly show AGW to be completely wrong and a fraud
Peter Ridley shows that he incapable of reading and understanding even simple descriptions in science papers (assuming he even read them, I think that he didn’t even bother).
I think iit is time that Ridley’s mother changed the password on his computer before he shows himself to be anymore dishonest than he has shown in previous posts.
(note: I have not included links to the papers but they are the three links provided in Ridley’s piece of junk science).
Ian, as I said on 15th November following similar comments from you QUOTE: it is unfair to Chris and others involved here to subject a students blog to puerile exchanges of insults. Please join us at a politicians blog (Note 1) where I have posted a comment about you. I will not respond to any more of your comments here. UNQUOTE (Note 2). Please take up the offer to debate on a more appropriate forum. I have started a thread “What makes a DAGWer angry” (Note 3) where we can try to get a better understanding of where you and I are coming from. I have done a lot of careful searching to find out about Ian Forrester, Biochemist and have identified two, one in Canada (possible) and one in New Zealand (unlikely). It would not surprise me if you are a Gemini (like myself). From the evidence that I’ve found I’m forming the opinion that you are a competent biochemist and debate your discipline in a reasonable manner but are frustrated by your own lack of understanding of the sciences behind global climate processes and drivers. That might explain why you are so rude when trying to debate with a sceptic.
That’s enough for this thread. Lets take it elsewhere (Note 3).
NOTE
1) see http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/125/P4290/
2) see https://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/consequences-of-being-over-concerned/
3) see http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/692/
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Ah yes, Ridley, if you can’t stand the heat you should stay out of the kitchen. Why on earth should I, as a scientist, go to a site full of anti-science lies, distortions, obfuscation and idiots like you?
Now that you have been shown to know absolutely nothing about science you want to leave, well good bye and don’t hurry back.
I am rude because I don’t like anti-science Dunning Kruger sufferers like you whose selfishness will cause untold harm to my children and their children.
Why are you so selfish?
Ian, please try to get your facts straight before commenting. I am not proposing to leave Chris’s blog (unless he asks me to), as I’m learning a lot from debating the ice core reconstructions. People here have been very helpful. What I propose is that we take your defensive (and childish) comments to a more appropriate thread elsewhere. You’re presenting yourself as a bully and a coward by refusing to join the other thread. I’m sure that there are people on this one who would be only too pleased for us to take this exchange away. I have started that thread and debate is underway, with your comments from all over the Internet being put under close scrutiny. Surely you should be there to ensure fair comment, otherwise others may get the wrong idea about you. Have a rethink and hopefully you’ll get involved. I would really like to understand how your mind works.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley,
Considering the material that you’ve posted so far, everybody on this board has been extremely polite with you. While it is understandable that you may be upset with some of the comments, please keep in mind that this is a science blog. As such, there is a low tolerance for post that might be perfectly acceptable in politically conservative blogs. This is only because such blogs tend to routinely trample on the truth and have a generally low regard for real science.
May I offer you some advice?
Try to be as honest as possible.
Only the most gullible people will be mislead by lies.
Also, don’t even bother with conspiracy theories.
Finally, if you’d like to understand the science of global warming better, please feel free to ask.
Pete Ridley;
I’m going to go out on a limb here and share my suspicion that you have a deep fear of the ramifications of global warming.
Is this the case?
If so, please don’t be afraid.
Global warming is unlikely going to be the end of the world.
It is only one of many problems that our civilization must deal with.
Look you know nothing about science, you keep on linking to denier sites anfd yop uare surprised whe scientists call you on yor udishonesty.
You are the bully and stalker spreading personal information about people who disagree with you all over the internet. That is a crime in a case you didn’t know it.
You don’t deserve the courtesy that Chris has shown you.
You are a pathetic denier troll who is only interested in smearing and slandering honest scientists.
You are not welcome on a science blog with that sort of behaviour.
Oops, sorry about that first sentence, I don’t know what happened.
Chris, if you object to me commenting on your site then please tell me. You have disagreed with me on several occasions and that’s not surprising, considering how much uncertainty there is about the impact that humans have on global climates. I only remember on one occasion on 29th Dec. when you hinted that I might not be welcome here, although on 11th Nov. you said “You are welcome to post what you want”. Please tell me if you’ve changed your mind.
Andrew, thanks for your apparent concern but you are way off-mark. In my comment above (3rd Jan @ 09:43) I explained where I was coming from regarding the AGW religion. After almost 3 years of research I am now bordering on atheism but still looking for any convincing evidence that humans are causing catastrophic global climate change through using fossil fuels (as I suspect are most of us sceptics). There are many out there like me, including lots and lots of respected scientists. We all need to help each other (DAGW sceptics and supporters) in trying to understand the numerous scientific complexities behind those global climate processes and drivers. Please try to open your mind to the possibility that the science has been politicised, hence distorted.
Thanks also for the advice but it was unnecessary, since I have been aware of what you offered for many years. I do appreciate your willingness to assist, especially on the science side, if you have any expertise to share.
You say “everybody on this board has been extremely polite with you”. May I suggest that your should have said “nearly everybody”. There have been one or two exceptions, the most objectionable individual being Ian, who is noted across the Internet for his abusive comments to anyone who dares to doubt the validity of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis. It doesn’t matter who they are, even respected scientists are subjected to his invective. If you are interested in checking this out for yourself I can give your links to many many examples, particularly on desmogblog, scienceblogs or through Grist. The “Climate Change – What makes a DAGWer angry “ thread that I started on Senator Fielding’s site (Note 1) will be analysing his comments, his background and what motivates him. You have apparently tried to analyse my motives so why not join in on the analysis of DAGWers like Ian. Amateur phsycologists are welcome.
Ian, I am reluctant to continue exchanging comments with you here because it is unfair to Chris and others who have in the main been courteous and helpful. I shall be posting another comment on my “Climate Change – What makes a DAGWer Angry” thread (Note 1) starting QUOTE: In Ian Forester’s opinion anyone who challenges DAGW is moronic, stupid, dishonest, ignorant, pathetic, troll, don’t know what they are talking about, haven’t a clue how science works or insults intelligent people (all of these can be found in his numerous blog comments). I accept that he considers all of these to describe myself (not to forget “stalker”) UNQUOTE. There are other DAGWers who will be commenting on that thread and sounding just like you with their childish insults so there is no reason for you to feel alone and threatened. You won’t be left fighting us “idiots” by yourself. At least you were prepared to use your own name and give out details that help to identify who you are and what you do for a living. Those others don’t dare say a word about themselves, cowering behind their several false names.
Don’t you think that as a devoted disciple of the IPCC version of the AGW religion you should be preaching to the infidels rather than to the converted. Join in on Senator Fielding’s “Climate Change” thread (Note 2) as well. Most of the contributors there are sceptics, with a handful of DAGWers. I’m sure that they would welcome your presence, especially as one of them has included a mention of you. On that thread he hides behind the false name “Guess Who” but here hid behind “Ajsaid” – see 14th February @ 9:01 pm).
May I respectfully suggest that just for once those of you who have criticised me here try reviewing your own comments in an impartial manner, checking against the evidence you have for saying what you have said. If you are capable of doing this in a scientific manner then you may be surprised and revise your conclusions.
BTW, here’s something that biochemists and others might appreciate. Have a glass of wine, relax and enjoy (Note 3)
NOTES:
1) see http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/692/
2) see http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/125/P9375/
3) see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYW50F42ss8
Regards, Pete R.
Ridley said:
Oops the formatting got screwed up. Only the first sentence is Ridley’s quote.
To better understand Pete Ridley and what motivates him look here.
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/alert/cornwall-alliance-releases-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
AJ;
This is a serious allegation; a significant religious abuse.
First, it is founded on a lie and as such represents a sin.
Second, the “Donation Accepted” link is prominent and likely the true motivation.
It’s not possible to worship both God and Money.
Anybody worshiping God will be lead to the truth, not a pack of lies.
Andrew
Ian and AJsaid (AKA Guess Who), I have posted your comments and responded at http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/692/P15/
there is not much point to posting science links,articles on fielding’s forum
every few weeks all non denier posts are removed
it is a virtual choir of denial , even the most inane posts are congratulated as being worthy , an echo chamber for WUWT, american thinker, bishop hill
the usual bunch,
hey AJ, i just got the credit for that post on ridley ,i found him also referencing
the cornwall alliance in a few posts and posted similar info
Chris, sorry, I’ve attracted that troll over to this blog. AJ (AKA Cooloola, Pheonix and Guess Who) posts the same sort of meaningless comment on Senator Fielding’s blogs.
Andrew, in response to AJ (AKA Pheonix, Guess Who, Cooloola and goodness knows what other false names) saying QUOTE: To better understand Pete Ridley and what motivates him look here. UNQUOTE and his link to the evangelical article “Cornwall Alliance releases An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming” you said QUOTE: This is a serious allegation; a significant religious abuse. First, it is founded on a lie and as such represents a sin. Second, the “Donation Accepted” link is prominent and likely the true motivation. It’s not possible to worship both God and Money. Anybody worshiping God will be lead to the truth, not a pack of lies. UNQUOTE. I’m thoroughly familiar with the childish and insulting rants from AJ (or whoever) just as I am with those of Ian but haven’t seen that sort of comment from yourself. What precisely are you referring to with your “serious allegation”, “significant religious abuse”, “lie” and “sin” and “likely the true motivation” for whom? Is it the stance and “person” of the Cornwall Alliance to whom you are referring?
I had never been to that evangelical site until today but it is extremely interesting (Note 1) because of the similarities between the motives and methods of people and organisations supporting religious beliefs and those supporting the belief that humans are causing catastrophic global climate change through cultivating the land, eating meat, belching, farting, using fossil fuels and even breathing.
On the subject of religious beliefs, I suspect that you have had the pleasure of visits from Jehovah’s Witnesses. I often engage them in debate, trying to persuade them that there is no evidence to support their faith in a benevolent superpower. This is as impossible as trying to enlighten convinced DAGWers that there is no evidence that humans are causing catastrophic global climate change. After my most recent religious debate a couple of weeks ago the lovely (but misguided) lady with whom I last chatted popped round again with a copy of one of their propaganda booklets. She had it ready open at an article on “intelligent design” and said “This should convince you”. I leave you to assess the evidence available to you in a scientific manner to form your own opinion of the outcome (please let me know your conclusion).
I believe that “intelligent design” is a cornerstone of the Cornwall Alliance position. In my humble opinion the Cornwall Alliance is no different than other religious organisations in that it very cleverly merges fact with fiction to provide a plausible argument in support of its conviction which gullible people accept as truth (just like the DAGWers).
If you are interested in knowing what is the extent of my involvement with the Cornwall Alliance please Google “Pete Ridley” and “Cornwall Alliance”. The first link in the list should be to my 2007 article “POLITICIZATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND CO2”) although you may already be aware of it. Any good scientist (as you seem to purport) would have properly followed up on that comment from JA + aliases) before responding you will have found it already. I recall that I was directed to the article by Spencer 6 months into my research into human-made global climate change when coming across a comment on an article about “Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize” (Note 2).
It is disappointing that Ian Forrester hasn’t yet joined the debate on Australian Senator Steve Fielding’s “Climate Change – What makes a DAGWer angry” thread (Note 3). As he’s being used as a case study I’d have thought he’d want to make his views known. It’s not like him to keep quiet about these. Maybe he’s gone with his spaniels for a quiet break fly-fishing in the Bow and reviewing his opinions before getting involved. Always a good idea before entering into debate
BTW, I’m still researching the preferential fractionation of the different components of air in ice sheets before they are “trapped”. It’s all very interesting stuff but I’m always happy to receive assistance from others. You never know, it could turn out that the gold in that “Gold Standard” is really only a “fools-gold” (Note 4) after all.
NOTES:
1) see http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/a-renewed-call-to-truth-prudence-and-protection-of-the-poor/
2) see http://forums.signonsandiego.com/showthread.php?t=78910&page=12
3) see http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/692/P15/
4) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrite
Regards, Pete Ridley
PS: I’ve just noticed that Ian Forrester, like Cooloola (et al.), apparently tries to link those who dare to challenge the DAGW faith with less well supported religious organisations. In 2006 it was reported that he theorised (Note 1) that there is a conspiracy between what he refers to as “anti-science groups” and the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon QUOTE: There are a number of webs of interconnected anti-science groups out there. These include the Discovery Institute (anti-science of evolution), the Exxon secrets group (anti AGW) .. and many others. .. It has now been shown that a number of anti-environmental groups trying to show that there are no bad effects from a number of well known pollutants (asbestos, mercury, chromium, carbon dioxide, CFC’s etc) are connected through a number of right wing “think tanks” and anti-science web sites. The Discovery Institute so far remains apart in all of this but I have a feeling that there may be a connection. After all, they are more than just “anti-evolution” as can be seen from their “Wedge Document” they want to re-write all of science and other disciplines with their own version of “truth.”
There seems to be a strong Moonie influence with the Discovery Institute and its cohorts, … Thus it would appear that there is Moonie influence and money in both the anti-evolution web and the anti AGW web UNQUOTE.
It seems that conspiracy theories exist on both sides of the debate, but where is the evidence. Scientists should know how important that is.
Note 1) see http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_archive.html
Best regards, Pete R
Ridley, you are one sick person. Why do you waste so much of your time endlessly searching the internet for information about me?
Chris, I think it is time you stopped this potential psychopath before he really gets himself into trouble. I doubt very much that it will be the first blog he has been banned from.
Hi Ian, just read ridleys last post, he is not only a serial stalker but from reading
that post a serial liar also.
not sure he has pushed this here yet.
according to ridley, all atmospheric levels of co2 up to 80,000 ppmv are quite safe , psychologists are fairly certain that AGW denial is borne of fear.
unable to confront a crisis, they retreat into denial.
ridleys essay can be found at the NZ climate science coalition ,
the essay shows just how involved ridley is in spreading anti climate change propaganda.
the ref to the cornwall alliance was made in 2007
anyway i will leave you all here to discuss the science, the purpose of the blog
ridleys purpose is to confuse and spread mistrust of the IPCC, CRU and all scientists currently working in the field,
For anyone who’s interested in how my article “POLITICIZATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND CO2 “ was posted on the NZ Climate Science Coalition web-site (Note 1), it was thus. In researching AGW after being frightened by Mark Lynas’s booklet “Six Degrees .. ” I came across a summary and reactions to the 1998 paper “The Climate Catastrophe – a Spectroscopic Artifact” by Dr. Heinz Hug on John Daly’s blog (Note 2). This lead me to the blog’s “Climate Change – Guest Papers” page (Note 3) where can be found a reference to “The Greenhouse Delusion: Critique of “Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis” (9 Dec 2001) by Dr Vincent Gray (NZ). Major report and critique on the IPCC Third Assessment Report, 2001” (Note 4) where, on the front page, is vinmary.gray@paradise.net.nz.
I e-mailed my article to Dr. Gray MA, PhD (Physical Chemistry from Cambridge U) and he reviewed it (peer-review’s not good enough for me, I insist on superior-review). Dr. Gray then said that he’d pass it on to the editor of the NZ Climate Science Coalition web-site recommending its publication. I was delighted, having failed to persuade organisations like the UK’s Forum for the Future and Sustainable Development Commission to publish it on their environmentalist blogs for debate.
The first person to accuse me of being a “troll” was Barry Brook on his bravenewclimate blog on 6th June last year (Note 5). I had no idea what a troll was so looked it up and couldn’t understand how anyone could think that of me. My first encounter with Brook was only three days earlier on 3rd June (Note 6) where I commented until 5th. On 4th June on Brook’s blog in which he was criticising Professor Ian Plimer’s book “Heaven and Earth” (Note 7) I drew Brook’s attention to the references in and location of my paper and how important it was that these should be refuted if agnostics like myself were to be persuaded that the DAGW theory was valid. I continued debating the matter on that blog. I assume that Brook (and others) jumped to the totally wrong conclusion that I had deep dealings with the “Climate Science Coalition”, not only with the NZ branch but elsewhere (Note 8). My only connection has been through the publication of my article.
In preparing the above I visited the International Climate Science Coalition web-site and found that there had been a PrimeTime debate between climate change scientist Dr. David Keith, Director of Calgary U’s Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy since 2004 and engineer Tom Harris, Executive Director of the ICSC scientist (Note 9). Dr. Keith made the point immediately that “science is uncertain … changes are hard to predict in detail .. doesn’t mean that we should necessarily act .. “. Tom Harris presented the usual sceptical points but added “climate science is in a negative state of development. The more we learn the more we realise how little we know … ”. Keith commented that “ .. it’s a matter of risk management ..” Tom Harris argued for the need for much more openness in the debate. Nothing changes, the debate ended back where it started – nothing resolved.
This also led me to a project headed by Dr. Keith looking at developing CO2 extraction from air (Note 10), although the University’s publicity editor heads one of his bulletins very simplistically with “Capturing the cause of climate change”. The bulletins obviously are not subjected to peer review. I can’t find anything on this since 2008 and see that Keith seems now to favour Solar Radiation Management. Does anyone know if his CO2 extraction project is making any progress? Perhaps you know something Ian (Forrester) as you are located in Calgary and have shown some interest in the subject.
Ian, why don’t you join us on the “Climate Change – What makes a DAGWer angry” (Note 11) where I am using much of what I find about you on the Internet as a case study into DAGWer psychology. I don’t think that we yet have other than novice psychologists involved there but we do at least have a professional lawyer keeping an eye on it. The lawyer uses the false name “sheepish” but it doesn’t take much searching on the Internet to determine that sheepish is really Val Majkus.
In my next comment there I shall be starting with QUOTE: In Ian’s opinion any who challenge AGW are either moronic, stupid, illiterate, dishonest, devious, ignorant, arrogant, extravagant, indecent, rude, pathetic, selfish, deniers, trolls, lying slime-balls, don’t know what they are talking about, haven’t a clue how science works, insult intelligent people, live in a fantasy world, are on an anti-science crusade, suffer from Dunning Kruger syndrome or are a combination of these. All can be found in his numerous blog comments. It doesn’t matter to whom he is referring, even respected scientists are subjected to his invective. If you are interested in checking this out for yourself I can give your links to many many examples, particularly on desmogblog, scienceblogs or through Grist. I accept that he considers all of these to describe myself (not to forget “bully”, “stalker, stalker, stalker” and “one sick puppy/person”). UNQUOTE.
In my universe it does not matter to me how you see me. Across the Internet you have a similar attitude to anyone who challenges the DAGW hypothesis. Some of those have responded with some rather nasty comments about you. Have you ever asked yourself “Do I deserve this”?
It’s unfair to clog Chris’s blog with dogma and opinion rather than helping him by debating science, although, as a budding scientist, he may be equally interested in understanding the psychology of us sceptics. Have a look Chris if you can spare the time, although you’re probably very busy learning more about science before your next exams.
My recent investigations into the distortion of reconstructed ancient atmospheric concentrations of O2 in air from ice cores due to the preferential fractionation of CO2 are looking promising but I have more work to do pulling it all together. The phenomenon is not only used commercially for removing impurities like CO2, O2 N2 etc from natural gas but also for measuring accurately the surface area of porous solids. Meanwhile, any contributions on this are welcome.
NOTES: NB: I HAVE REMOVED THE http:// FROM THE LINKS IN CASE THE ARE REJECTED AS PREVIOUSLY.
1) see nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1
2) see http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
3) see http://www.john-daly.com/guests.htm
4) see http://www.john-daly.com/tar-2000/summary.htm
5) see bravenewclimate.com/2009/05/30/another-hockey-stick-fabrication/
6) see bravenewclimate.com/2009/06/03/sa-sets-a-33-renewables-by-2020-target/ /
7) see bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
8) see http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/
9) see albertaprimetime.com/Default.aspx?FlashVars=Video/PTG_021810.flv
10) see http://www.ucalgary.ca/news/september2008/keith-carboncapture
11) see http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/692/P30 /
Regards, Pete Ridley
It’s not “skepticism” it’s dishonesty that I hate. You don’t even know what skepticism is all about. It has got nothing to do with how you act, you are a typical dishonest denier. That’s all you have since you refuse to learn the science which does get discussed on this blog. Cutting and pasting whatever you find on denier sites is not what science is about.
I don’t know what your background is (and I don’t care) but you lack cognitive and logical reasoning skills as well as being dishonest. It is dishonest to keep repeating some thing over and over again when knowledgeable people have told you it is wrong.
Guys, these conversations are over with. The only posts that will be accepted on this thread, and others which involve these back-and-forths, are those directly relevant to the post.
Vulcano’s emit CO2 without regard to the Earths temperature.
However, rock weathering is influenced by temperature.
Low temperatures, reduce weathering and allow CO2 to buildup in the atmosphere. High temperatures accelerate weathering and reduce CO2 levels. This is a long term thermostat for the earth; the biggest control knob.
It operates on time scales of half million years or so.
There is evidence that earth was nearly totally covered with glaciers at one time. Such a Snowball Earth only makes sense with CO2 playing a role.
Low level glaciers found closer to tropics when CO2 levels were low.
Only way to break up snowball is with high levels of CO2.
Geological evidence has been found of thick limestone deposite (from high CO2 levels) on top of evidence of glaciers in tropical seas.
Has nothing to do with the continents moving around.
4 Billion years ago, we know the sun was not as bright as it is now.
However, there is plenty of evidence of liquid oceans covering the planet throughtout the history of eath. This Faint Young Sun “Paradox” only makes sense with CO2 being able to provide enough insulation to keep earth warm.
Looking over history of earths climate, nothing makes sense without CO2 playing a significant role. Without CO2, earth will cool off enough that the oceans will freeze near the tropics.
People who believe otherwise are either ignorant or not motivated by the truth.
Andrew, as a sceptic all that I see you doing is that you suspect CO2 is the culprit and think that you have built a case to have it convicted. As a member of the jury you have not convinced me “beyond reasonable doubt” that this is so.
Evidence for the defence includes the fact that increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 have a diminishing effect. Another is that water vapour is present in much higher concentrations and absorbs and emits across a much broader IR spectrum. In other words, the impact of CO2 concentrations is insignificant.
Verdict, CO2 is innocent of all charges. News headlines “THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE” reported by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD (Note 1). Supporting evidence “CO2 and CH4: Not guilty your Honour!” (Note 2), “THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE” by Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc. – Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory (Note 3) “Climate change? Check this data” (Note 4),
NOTES:
1) see http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
2) see http://agmates.ning.com/forum/topics/co2-and-ch4-not-guilty-your
3) see http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4254
4) see http://www.sustainableoregon.com/ipccwrong-1.html
Best regards, Pete Ridley
That’s very interesting Pete, I think you’d better tell Dr. Alley right away about your findings on CO2, as proven, by the peer reviewed, rock solid, no doubt-about-it evidence that you kindly presented to us very fortunate readers here.
The debate is over everyone, nothing to see here.
Peggyb, do I detect a suggestion of sarcasm in your comment QUOTE: tell Dr. Alley right away about your findings on CO2, as proven, by the peer reviewed, rock solid, no doubt-about-it evidence UNQUOTE? I accept that none of my links were to peer-reviewed papers. Despite that, Jeffrey Glassman is a well-qualified engineer, John Nethery is a well qualified and experienced geologist who was considered by Professor Ian Plimer to be competent enough to peer-review his book “Heaven and Earth” (Note 1). Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc. is Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory and Professor Ross McKitrick is highly respected (at least by sceptics0 for his research into palaeo-climate reconstruction. I would suggest that each of these stands head and shoulders above anyone else on Chris’s threads, even those who claim to be standing on the shoulders of giants (e.g. Patrick 027).
I anticipate that there will be plenty more “to see here”.
NOTES:
1) see http://agmates.ning.com/profile/John_Nethery
Best regards, Pete Ridley
In the original webcast, 2 paradox’s were presented that can only be explained if CO2 plays a significant role in the global climate and temperature.
So far, there has been no alternative explanation provided or suggested.
The skeptics can complain about all types of things, but none are relevant to what Dr Alley presented.
Meanwhile, land and ocean surface temperatures are gradually rising, the cryosphere is in retreat, sea levels are rising and storm systems are strengthening. Some day, the thermal haline circulation may break down.
Re the above post in answer to Pete Ridley ( March 2nd, 10.34pm) Please note that this was posted by someone else using my usual user name.
I suspect someone from another forum, but I can only ‘Guess Who’.
Any further comments posted under the name Peggb should be disregarded as being my opinions.
thank you (the real) Peggyb.
sorry peggy but chris would already know my server and yours no doubt
i thought you two were playing sock puppets at first , why dont you leave people that know what they are talking about to get on with the science ?
Pete, good to see you here, and Peggy too! oh wow, phoenix is here as well, hi phoenix!
this place really neat. they talk about physics and stuff and I’m learning so much! i hope you all stay and look around as you will learn a lot too!
Chris, I have just received an E-mail from the real “Peggyb” (with whom I correspond regularly) which I copy here QUOTE: G’day Pete. If this is what you are referring to, I didn’t post this. I have never been on Chris Colose’s site and in particular not March 2nd, (yesterday). At 10.34 pm last night I was not even on my computer. I think someone has signed onto Chris’s site using my user name. You might mention this on Chris’s site that I have notified you about this. I am tempted to sign on using the name ‘Guess Who’ and agree wholeheartedly with everything you say. But I won’t have time for a couple of days to play games. Cheers, Peggy UNQUOTE.
You need to be aware that JA, phoenix and the pretend Peggyb also uses the name Guess Who (and previously cooloola) on Senator Steve Fielding’s blog. That individual’s objective is purely to disrupt intelligent debate, as well as making vicious comments about anyone that is sceptical about DAGW. I choose to ignore any of those comments, as do most of those involved in the debate at Senator Fielding’s blogs (which have a very useful “ignore” button which removes such comment from view. It can be expected that a new false name or names will soon be used so I suggest that you watch out for it. I’m even a bit suspicious of the “Colin” who commented on 4th.
I apologise once again for attracting the attention of someone like that over here. Although you don’t accept it, I am genuinely eager to learn more about climate process and drivers but as you are perfectly aware am very sceptical of the “consensus” and becoming more so each day.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Andrew, although QUOTE:.. 2 paradox’s were presented that can only be explained if CO2 plays a significant role in the global climate and temperature UNQUOTE I can only recall the one that you have mentioned previously, the “Faint young Sun” paradox (Perhaps you can remind me of the second). With present knowledge of the global environment (and even the sun) those several billion years ago, any claims about causes and effects appear to me as unproven hypotheses (Note 1). Although it is called a “paradox” perhaps a more appropriately word is a “speculation”.
Contrary to your QUOTE: So far, there has been no alternative explanation provided or suggested UNQUOTE it seems to me that there have been several speculative explanations. Have you any information on any of the alternatives, e.g. that “mass loss through a declining solar wind” theory (Note 2).
I am puzzled by your comment QUOTE: The skeptics can complain about all types of things, but none are relevant to what Dr Alley presented UNQUOTE. I’m a sceptic. I complain about the insulting manner in which Professor Jaworowski’s suggestion that the reconstruction of ancient atmospheres from air retrieved from ice cores is affected by physical and chemical processes that are not properly understood. I complain that I cannot find any research that disproves the theory that differential adsorption within ice sheets over many decades affects the concentration of the various atmospheric gases. Is not this this is totally relevant to what Dr. Alley presented about “The Gold Standard” (or is it “The Pyrite Standard”?)?
As for your QUOTE: Meanwhile, land and ocean surface temperatures are gradually rising, the cryosphere is in retreat, sea levels are rising and storm systems are strengthening. Some day, the thermal haline circulation may break down UNQUOTE, how significant are any “rising”s, “retreat”s or “strengthening”s that may or may not be taking place? As for that “may”, pigs “may” fly.
NOTES:
1) see http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/faintsun.asp and http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/mars/Paradox_FYS.html
2) see http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.123.5385
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Forget all that I have said above. I’ve had a revelation people, an all encompasing epiphany! Richard Alley is my new GOD and my mission in life is to preach his message to the deniers. I must thank you all for helping remove the blinkers and opening my eyes to the truth.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I am the person who posted on the “Greenhouse Effect Revisited” thread. I am not the person (obviously an identity fraudster) who posted on this thread at 1:27am om the 4th of March.
I regard this as a serious matter. Someone is playing political games, polluting the discussions and trying to sow distrust and hatred between the various “sides” in this fascinating debate. I enjoy the discussion, and would not want to see any views (except ad hominem ones) suppressed. But deliberate disruption/identity theft is another matter entirely.
I hope the moderator can sort out and delete all posts from this person, and I encourage him to do so.
Global temperatures are rising at about 0.015C/year.
Over the short term that is barely noticeable.
Of course it’s a long term phenomenon, so that total temperature rise over a century would be more significant at about 1.5C.
Sea levels are rising about 3mm/year.
Again, over the short term this not a significant problem.
However, since the rate at which ice caps and glaciers melt is a function of temperature, the rate of sea level rise is expected to increase over time; a doubling of the rate is entirely plausible. Never the less, even a doubling of the rate of sea level rise over a century would amount to only about 60cm (2 feet). While there are some low lying areas for which such a level change are a cause for great concern, for the most part humans should be able to adopt/build to such changes.
Dr Alley actually presented several paradox’s; as mentioned 2 were prominently mentioned. It’s a simple matter to listen to his talk and note which these are, but as a hint the 2nd involves lots of ice.
Anyhow, Dr Alley also stated that not all the paradox’s have been resolved. So, there is still work to be done. Anybody truly seeking the truth would be interested enough to find out more about these paradox’s as opposed to simply dismissing them out of hand. Such an attitude is a weak argument, not enlightening and something that might be expected of an ignorant denier.
The faint young sun paradox is by no means speculation. Nuclear physics and solar evolution have been extensively studied and verified correct. 4 Billion years ago, the sun was only about 70% as bright as it is now and yet there is evidence that the earth has had liquid oceans for majority of this time. The only reasonable explanation are that greenhouse gases accumulated enough to increase the insulating properties of the atmosphere. The only reason why the earth doesn’t over heat, is that higher temperatures also lead to greater precipitation, which results in increased weathering of rocks which in turn scrubs CO2 from the atmosphere better; hence the biggest control knob.
The earths climate is the marvelous result of the interplay between water and carbon dioxide (H2O and CO2). There are plenty of details to the science and lots of nifty checks that can be performed. However, we know enough that to be able to predict our climate will at a minimum resemble the Miocene within a few centuries. Not necessarily the end of the world, but enough of a change that prudence dictates we need to be efficient and careful with our use of fossil fuels.
Chris, your blog is being used by an idiot who is bent on disrupting debate between supporters of DAGW and sceptics like myself, peggyb and Colin Davidson.
That comment posted on March 4, 2010 @ 5:29 pm was not from the Pete Ridley (me) who has been commenting on your blogs since November. Neither was the comment posted on March 4, 2010 @ 1:27 am from the Colin on your “Greenhouse Effect Revisited” blog on February 27, 2010 @ 6:12 pm. Nor was the comment posted on March 2, 2010 @ 10:34 pm from the Peggyb who posted here on March 3, 2010 @ 6:57 pm (you may remember her from Senator Fielding’s “Climate Change” thread on which you exchanged comments with Colin back in September).
The idiot here uses numerous different false names, including JA, Phoenix, Guess Who, cooloola and Lord Monkton in order to spread confusion and cause disruption. Can’t you get your blog administrator/moderator to block all comments from that source?
Andrew, you say QUOTE: Global temperatures are rising at about 0.015C/year. .. so that total temperature rise over a century would be more significant at about 1.5C UNQUOTE. As you are fully aware, this is only true IF that rate of rise is correct and IF it continues for 100 years. Have you a valid figure for the probability of that rate being correct and for the probability of a continuing rise over 100 years? No, I thought not. It’s more “if”s, “might”s and “maybe”s isn’t it.
The claimed increase over the past 160 years is about 0.7C (<0.005C/year), the claimed rate of increase for the past 10 years is ? There’s an interesting Feb. 2010 article “Why the EPA is Wrong about Recent Warming” (Note 1) which presents a range of claimed rates since 1950, the highest of which is 0.017C/year (Hadley Centre), the next is 0.009C/year (corrected for a World War II cold bias) and finally 0.008C/year (according to Solomon et. al. 2010). The article says QUOTE: The overall trend declines to 0.081°C/decade (or a total rise of 0.486°C). Now the EPA’s “observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century” has dropped from 0.702°C down to 0.486°C—and about 31% of increase from anthropogenic GHGs is gone. UNQUOTE.
Taking this into consideration along with the possibility of a continuation of the past decades trend into cooling over the next several decades (at least) and it looks to me as though our worry should not be about global warming but about global cooling.
You say QUOTE: Sea levels are rising about 3mm/year .. the rate of sea level rise is expected to increase over time; a doubling of the rate is entirely plausible UNQUOTE but once again there is significant uncertainty about both the claimed rate of increase and the future outcome. Do you have a valid figure for the probability of this “expected increase” or of a “doubling”? Once again it’s a no. It is just as plausible that sea levels will stop increasing and start falling as the global climates get cooler.
As for listening to Dr. Alley’s talk, I have already done this before posting here in December and found nothing that would attract me back again, since I recognised much of what he said as being speculation, not fact. I do agree with one thing that you say QUOTE: there is still (an enormous amount of) work to be done UNQUOTE. I suggest that you missed out a very important word “
Please would you try to avoid insulting people with words like “ignorant denier”. It lowers you to the level of Ian Forrester (Note 2), who commands little if any respect from those with whom he has debated.
Why repeat what you said about “the faint young sun” paradox. I don’t think that you bothered to read the articles to which I linked. You won’t learn anything if you don’t read widely.
As for your QUOTE: The earths climate is the marvelous result of the interplay between water and carbon dioxide (H2O and CO2) UNQUOTE, I think that sums up your problem – oversimplification of a very very complex set of global climate processes and drivers.
You say QUOTE: However, we know enough that to be able to predict our climate will at a minimum resemble the Miocene within a few centuries UNQUOTE but even those “experts” in the IPCC shy away from “predicting” global climates even for one century ahead. Instead they make do with offering “projections” based upon fictitious “scenarios”. They need someone like you to show them how easy it is to predict even over several centuries. As a member of Greenpeace said to me months ago on his blog “Fame awaits you”.
Finally, there is no reason to believe that our use of fossil fuels has anything other than negligible impact upon global climates. They are the cheapest source of energy available to us, are vitally important to bot developed and developing global economies and will continue to be so for many decades yet.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
NOTES:
1) see http://www.masterresource.org/2010/02/why-the-epa-is-wrong-about-recent-warming/
2) see https://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/an-update-to-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997/#comment-2135
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Response: I’ll look at the comments in more detail later on, and delete “fake” ones.– chris
Thanks Chris, but I think it better to place the source on permanent “ignore”.
Pete, Col & Peggy.. the brief time I’ve spent here I’ve noted the ‘Gravatar’ are the true indicator.. all the Fake posters have a different ‘Gravatar’ ..
It would seem possibly that WordPress allows more than one email address/ID to have similar/same alias/nickname.
I was enjoying this forum in silent non-contributory mode until Miss Disruptive at any/all costs started her silliness.
I am seeking the truth; not fame.
Most everyone ought to be somewhat grateful that CO2 helps warm the planet. Without it, the oceans would freeze all the way to the tropics and earth would not be as habitable as it is.
CO2 emissions from fossil fuels (and other human activities) have dominated changes in the earths climate for only the last 50 or 60 years. Prior to that, natural variations were dominate. So, it is irrelevant to attribute changes over longer time periods (160 years) to humans. In fact, sulfate aerosols have resulted in a some cooling of the atmosphere during this time. If it weren’t for sulfate aerosols, the actual amount of global warming would have been greater than it has been. Sulfate aerosol levels are now essentially stable and future warming will largely track the rise in CO2 levels with some time delay.
The earths climate is sensitive to CO2 somewhere between 2 to 4.5 C/CO2 doubling.
CO2 levels have been rising at about 0.5% per year.
0.5% is equal to about 0.007 in Log base 2.
So, earths long term average temperature will rise between 0.013 to 0.03C/year. It will do this for over all the objections of the deniers and conspiracy theorist.
0.015 is the observed average annual rise in earth temperature over the last 30 years.
The lower end of CO2 sensitivity is the expected response over shorter time periods (30 years). It takes into account changes in water vapor and clouds in response to CO2 changes.
The higher end of CO2 sensitivity is expected over longer time periods when things such as land ice and ground cover are considered. These only become significant factors over 100 years or so.
So, bottom line, unless the CO2 emission are reduced, the rate of rise of global average temperatures is expected to increase. Again, not the end of the world necessarily, but enough that prudence in the use of fossil fuels is warranted. Why would a denier ever argue otherwise?
I think it is unfortunate to use the term “denier” when describing someone who does not accept the DAGW proposition.
I cannot speak for others, only for myself.
I started with the Surface Balance Equation. It is easy to show from this that the surface sensitivity to a surface forcing is between 0.095 and 0.15 DegC/W/m^2. This is quite different to the TOA fibgure of about 0.3 DegC/W/m^2 – the surface requires between 2 and 3 TIMES the amount of forcing that the upper atmosphere requires to get the same temperature change.
Chris and others claim that the surface temperature is linked (as if by an iron bar) to the TOA temperature. I’m not yet convinced by the explanations to hand (perhaps someone can refer me to a good explanation) as I’m far from certain that the lapse rate is not a variable feast.
Then there is the “water vapour” feedback effect. That this is uncertain is proven by the range of sensitivity forecasts that Andrew cites – between 2 and 4.5 DegC. However some serious Climate Scientists (Spencer and Lindzen are prominent) argue for a feedback which is neutral or negative, resulting in a sensitivity in the range 0.5 to 1 DegC/W/m^2.
Then there is the matter of the amount of Radiative Forcing. If you go to the “Greenhouse Revisited” thread you will find my calculation of the height of the CO2 emission horizon, a height which is critical to the calculation of Radiative Forcing. My calculations lead me to the conclusion that the resultant forcing from a doubling of CO2 is either neutral or negative.
My sole connection with oil companies is the petrol pump. I have no vested interests that I am aware of. I have rational reasons for not accepting that the specific AGW claim of 2-4.5DegC (actually I thought it was 1.5 to 6) is proven.
And that’s before we get on to the D part of the DAGW thesis…
I hope this contrarian view helps.
Minor correction.
I stated “However some serious Climate Scientists (Spencer and Lindzen are prominent) argue for a feedback which is neutral or negative, resulting in a sensitivity in the range 0.5 to 1 DegC/W/m^2. ”
This should read:
“However some serious Climate Scientists (Spencer and Lindzen are prominent) argue for a feedback which is neutral or negative, resulting in a sensitivity in the range 0.5 to 1 DegC.”
In the past Lindzen has published some good papers, but the climate feedback paper he published last year in GRL was atrocious.
He treated the tropics as if they were a closed system and cherry picked his data. No reasonable person would consider either of these as a valid approach. The contrarian conclusions he drew regarding climate feedback have been debunked. Of course, that won’t prevent him from accepting speaking fees.
The planck response for CO2 in the atmosphere is about 1.1C/CO2 doubling. The response of water vapor adds about another degree C for a total short term sensitivity of about 2C/CO2 doubling. Beyond that requires the surface to overcome a lot of inertia as well as biological responses.
Only about 3% of the excess heat of global warming goes into surface temperatures. The remaining 97% goes into melting permafrost, land ice and heating the ocean depths. These heat sinks will take centuries to reach equilibrium.
As land ice reaches equilibrium and sea level rises, they will both work to lower the albedo of the planet and allow further warming. In addition, vegetation changes (tundra turning into forest) lower albedo and will also contribute to the warming.
Anyhow, I’m not very certain about just how dangerous global warming will be either. However, there are enough uncertainties involved that we ought to at a minimum be prudent with our use of fossil fuels.
Of course, people who are afraid of Miocene sea levels may be more concerned that I am.
Hi Colin
I’m just trying to understand the implications of your calculations. You say that the conclusion you draw from your calculations is that “the resultant forcing from a doubling of CO2 is either neutral or negative”. Does this mean that in fact CO2 is not a greenhouse gas at all (other than, perhaps, the first molecule in the atmosphere, after which all subsequent concentrations represent a series of doublings from the first molecule)? Do your calculations suggest that a reduction in CO2 by half would lead to no change or cooling? And then by half again would lead to no change or more cooling? So that removal of all CO2 (except for last molecule) would leave no change or a much cooler earth? Does any of the evidence (allowing for uncertainty) support this?
kind regards
James
real climate has interesting update on commitment and will do a post on the arctic methane shortly, skeptical science also have a list of the now 242 deniers arguments
and opposing peer reviewed science
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
.
.
Colin, thanks for reminding us that civil and reasoned debate is much more productive than insulting and dogmatic. There are some who depend upon the latter because they have nothing constructive to say but have a conviction to defend. I hope that I don’t give that impression because that is not how I see myself. Most of us have our momentary lapses and I’m as guilty as the next person, so I apologise to anyone who feels that I went over the top on occasions. I am always quite happy to be corrected when I’ve overstepped the mark.
Andrew, I was hoping that you would take that Greenpeace comment about “fame” in the same way that I eventuqlly realised how it was meant – to remember that there is another side to the argument which may be equally convincing. In your comment on 5th at 5:04 pm you said QUOTE: I am seeking the truth .. UNQUOTE but from the sounds of your comment you give the impression that you have already found it. There is not a single “may”. “might”, “could” or “perhaps”, only one “if” and that wasn’t expressing any uncertainty. In fact your 334 word comment has not a single word indicating uncertainty. You’re better than the IPCC, who’s reports are littered with uncertainty (excluding the SPM’s of course, but they are political not scientific).
In your comment of 4th @ 7:44 pm you repeated your comments of 2nd Feb. @ 3.43 pm about the rates of increase of global temperature and sea levels. I asked you then to provide evidence supporting these and you acknowledged on 3rd ? 3.32 pm that the 3mm/year sea level rise was that derived from satellite measurements over only a 10-year period. You concluded that QUOTE: .. there appears to be a slight acceleration in the rate of global sea level rise. UNQUOTE after comparing with tide gauge measurements. Taking into consideration the Max Plank Institute’s comment (Note 1) that QUOTE: The uncertainty of this global mean value is still relatively large, because only very few long-term tide gauge observations exist, and the corrections that need to be applied exhibit uncertainties themselves. UNQUOTE and the short period over which satellite measurements have been done your conclusion appears to me to be flawed. Extrapolation over 100 years is as meaningless as drawing the conclusion that the rate has increased (Note 2).
Those mean global temperatures are subject to the same high degree of uncertainty about their validity (Note 3) QUOTE: One of the problems with the surface temperature record is that substantial parts of the globe lack the measurements needed to generate monthly temperature records…
Conclusions
The history of the earth is marked by significant fluctuations in global temperatures. The modern science of climatology was concerned about global cooling in the 1970s and global warming since the late 1980s. As time goes forward, we will undoubtedly assemble more accurate temperature records and a greater understanding of the causal mechanisms of the variations and trends. But at this moment in time we know only that:
• Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades.
• Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period.
• This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models.
UNQUOTE. Other good examples are given at John Watts site (Note 4 – and follow the links there) yet you persist in expressing absolute confidence in what you say about global temperatures, sea levels and any thing elsethat you offer.
I notice in your later post on 5th @ 10:10 pm that after starting off lambasting Professor Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology you exhibit the same degree of certainty about the science.
I have commented previously about your confidence level when making pronouncements on climate science (3rd Feb. @ 10:15 am). You express far greater confidence (far less uncertainty) about this than do even the scientists who specialise in one of the many disciplines involved in improving our poor understanding of those climate processes and drivers. If you are a recognised leading scientist in one of these disciplines field then I might be prepared to accept more of what you say in preference to what recognised scientists like Professor Lindzen say but I have no reason to believe that you are even a scientist. Please tell me what your credentials are.
The only uncertainty that you acknowledge is QUOTE: I’m not very certain about just how dangerous global warming will be … UNQUOTE then adopt the precautionary principle with QUOTE: However, there are enough uncertainties involved that we ought to at a minimum be prudent with our use of fossil fuels UNQUOTE. In my opinion being overcautious is far more dangerous than any global climate change that might arise from our use of fossil fuels.
Your conviction amazes me, although one thing that for me stands out in your comments is that you rarely provide any links to evidence supporting your pronouncements.
NOTES:
1) see http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/presse/faqs/wie-stark-steigt-der-meeresspiegel-an.html
2) see http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/sealevel
3) see http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/170.pdf
4) see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Chris, unfortunately this will be my last post to your blog.
You have followed the same route as other failing blogs, in allowing your blog to become an echo-chamber for the denier cabal.
Honest scientists do not want to be insulted and shouted down by the deniers. They just get fed up and leave.
How many references cited by the deniers on this site (Pete Ridley, manakcker, Bob_FJ etc) been to actual papers in the scientific literature? The answer is “none,” they only link to denier sites which have been proven to be dishonest, misinformed, obfuscatory and mostly rubbish. Despite continued replies by the knowledgeable people who still post the deniers keep on repeating the rubbish ad nauseum.
Your blog is now overrun by these deniers and honest scientists will surely move away when their science is insulted by the dishonest nonsense repeated time after time by the deniers.
A science blog should be about science and not be infected by the “it’s all due to magic dust from faeries” crowd.
Response: I’m sorry you are disappointed. I have done my best to allow all comments possible, while still trying to make it clear which ones were nonsense (see Pete, manacker) and I am under the impression most readers can sift that out themselves. Maybe I’m just that dense. I have been re-considering my comment policy, but I’m not quite sure how I will approach it– chris
Chris, I think you deserve credit for allowing full and frank debate here.
I am probably one of the offending “deniers” that Ian is so upset about. I regret that he feels unable to stay – it’s a fascinating and stimulating subject area, with many different facets.
In any case science does not advance without disputation – I think the piece in The Australian at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/more-heat-than-light/story-e6frg8nf-1225835659512 four days ago was most apt. In that piece the author argues that science should be about publishing hypotheses to facilitate attempts at falsification – rather than being seen as a threat, these attempts should be assitsted and encouraged by the authors of the hypothesis under attack.
The author thinks all sides need to do more of that sort of science (seeking after the truth) than the other sort (manning the barricades). I thought it a very sensible piece.
Ian, regarding your departure, I don’t think that it will be detrimental to the debate here between supporters of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis and sceptics. Excluding quotations from others, out of the 1435 words posted here only 110 were your own thoughts on a scientific subject, molecular sieves/filters. I had expected more from someone who claims to be a research scientist with an understanding of climate processes and drivers.
Please would you consider joining the debate on the “Climate Change – What makes a DAGWer angry” thread (Note 1) as I’m sure that you could make a worthwhile contribution there. I look forward to hearing from you.
NOTE 1) see http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/692/P30/
Best regards, Pete Ridley
chris perhaps a two warning policy, use nonsense, {ridley,manacker} type posts as the trigger,I do not post here but often read through the threads,
it is disappointing when some go on and on with stuff like taguchi’s nonsense
and lindzens recent papers .
on SF blog, one of ridleys amigo’s posted “if the earths temperature isn’t self regulated”. this is the sort of nonsense stuff that appears on many other blogs.
denying temp increase and sea level increase is nonsense,
rgds
chris , have solved the mystery of the phantom fraud poster,
it was one of their mates in on it. i left a trap for him and he fell in
not sure you can tell from email address, it was a poster on steve fieldings site using the name ADMRICH from the Rockhampton area in QLD Australia area
Phoenix, unbelievable ..
you’re welcome to point out to Chris who you think I am & who you believe I am supposedly believed to have posted under. This is rubbish which you’ve had a constant stream of on that forum which has deserved you the unenviable right to be ‘ignored’ by many on the forum for your lack of meaningful or contributory input to that forum. The fact that you are now moving that from there to other forums to make/prove your point is contemptible. The mediator’s of that forum still allow you to post though which says a lot for them.
PS Fyi I’ve been in Far Nth Qld, Central Qld, Coastal Qld & Sth East Qld, but never Rockhampton nor would I ever really want to live in nor come from Rocky, no disrespect meant to/for folks from there.
Phoenix, please, prove it ..
a) which phantom posters have I posted as
b) how did you prove this ? Trap ?
c) is this because of your complete lack of anything at all that contributes in any imaginable let alone real way to that forum which results in many as has already been indicated above in this forum ignoring you which is a fortunate feature of that forum.
You have to tie the fake posters to an email address & possibly a domain/IP address & then prove that that email address/domain/IP address has been used by myself or anyone else you claim.
Chris, please be wary of anything that Phoenix (AKA cooloola, JA, Guess Who and Lord Monkton) tell you. You may find me annoying because of my sceptical attitude towards The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis but I am not here to cause trouble, only to debate. He/She/It of the false names has only one objective – to squash debate.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Chris, if you are in doubt about what I say of Phoenix you might like to consider the relevance of the striking resemblance of the comment here on 5th @ 6:21 pm with this one posted on Senator Fielding’s blog (Note 1).
QUOTE: guess who, Posted: 07 March 2010 09:51 AM [ Report ] [ Ignore ] [ # 10090 ]
Total Posts: 964 Joined: 2010-02-01
at Real Climate
Arctic methane not a game changer , most from rice paddies
release would have to be on a catastrophic decade scale due to lifespan , Co2 mainplayer
http://www.realclimate.org/
UNQUOTE.
Of course, some might argue that I was drawing the wrong conclusion from flimsy evidence, just as they might about my conclusions on The Hypothesis but there is much much more evidence available linking all of those false names. BTW, I forgot to mention the use of names like PeggyB, Colin and Pete Ridley. If you’re not careful yours will be the next one.
NOTES:
1) see http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/125/P10080/#19598
Best regards, Pete Ridley
test after password change, moderator please don’t approve, I just need to check the results of this
Guys, this and the thread on Kiehl/Trenberth/Fasullo are now closed. The comments have gotten too off-topic and rather ridiculous, and are going to be moderated more strictly on the basis of relevancy in the future.