Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog 

your last graph shows a gap between 1785 and 1840 (55yrs)

than it shows one point every 10 ys. between 1850 and 1900

Freedom of speech. Why is it not ok to post what I think is valuable and peer reviewed info?

Oh wow... Cruc has totally lost it... Somebody get the docs and put him into a padded cell... LOL


LOL that is funny.

seriously, I was discussing the ice core data, ot the data between 1800 and 2008

Michael

The CO2 data was published by Beck 2007

Energy and Environment (2007) pp.1-17

Pat we are being professional here. Nothing wrong so far, but compare me to CB ... dont know...

well the accuracy is 1-3% it is much smaller than the variation. it must represent.

why is the ice core missing all the variability?

do you have an issue with the other things I pointed out?

"how on earth Beck’s paper could survive a half-decent review process from anyone who knows any of this history"

well, peer_review process is fair otherwise everything is worthless.

i need time to search on that.

The point is to show that the knife cuts both ways, if the data is very uncertain we do not know if your side is correct too.

but thank you for pointing this out. What could cause such burps of CO2?

Was it an El nino?
Was it an unusual decade with extended low cloud cover? fast increase in surface temp therefore.

1C increase in SSt causes a 59ppm outgass of CO2

Knee jerk reactions profit the scientists that try to make a buck off their new findings.

I hear this again and again, and scratch my head. I know something of how university research works, and I cannot fathom what the writer (and those making similar complaints) are talking about.) I know of no case where a professor's income, salary, or other remuneration was tied to what particular results is or her science produced, as long as the science was deemed methodologically sound. Perhaps someone can enlighten me here.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5736103.html
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007279.cfm

well, gotta go, hundred of samples waiting in the lab. grave yeard night...

#208

Another iportant point is that many of the measurements based on "chemistry" were taken in urban environments were CO2 concentrations can be considerably higher then the atmospheric average. That's why we don't trust those records for CO2 recontructions.

Some of you will argue that Mona Loa is near a volcanoe, so it should not be a good sight either. There a dozensof other samplings station around the world in isolated areas and the they all show the same pattern of CO2 rise.

Why was Beck able to publish this material? Well nothing wrong with publishing the data, it has some historialcl interest, but it's the interpretation that's important and the editors at E&E clearly did a poor job.

The journal he published in, Energy and Environment, has a very bad reputation for it's editorial oversight and several very poor papers have made it passed the editors desk.

Why we are even debating somethiing as well established as the Co2 record over the last 200 years is what boogles my mind.

It seems the denialists just can't help dragging up old discredited material.

#209 Jer posts another deceptive graph.

Here's a more honest representation of the Haldey data.



Why only show one decade of data Jer? When a fuller record clearly show a relationship between CO2 and temp.

What about the MSU data:



There's a good write up about the dishonesty in the graph Jer posted here.

#212

The ice core is from an area were you don't get variability due to urban soruces that vary widely because of point sources of CO2 emmisions.

The ice core, because it from isolated areas, gives a better measure of regional trends. The "chemical" data gives a measurement for a particular place and time (for instance the city the sample was taken in)

Re 218:

This concerns the case of Dr. Bill Gray. Please keep in mind that he is a hurricane researcher, not a climatologist. None of his research is in climatology, nor can he be assumed to have the familiarity with the details of climatology that specialists in the field have. Unfortunately, this has not prevented him from making high-profile public statements concerning climate science, and creating something of a media circus in the process which, yes, irritated some people in high places. But the funding allegedly threatened, if you read the references closely, had to do merely with media coverage of these statements; no one seems to be specifically claiming that funding for his hurricane research was threatened, and that is what he actually does for a living. Methinks the good professor protests too much here, and this fabric of half-truths does not impress me as evidence that he or anyone else is being coerced into fudging actual scientific results to favor an AGW hypothesis by some shadowy, all-powerful environmentalist conspiracy (and who are these super-powerful, super-rich environmentalists, anyway? How do you strike it rich or amass power by championing environmental causes? It doesn't seem plausible to me.)

poor mind

Why we are even debating somethiing as well established as the Co2 record over the last 200 years is what boogles my mind.

this is not a stablished issue

#221

"a fuller record clearly show a relationship between CO2 and temp."


this relationship over a 100yr span is very weak, thus CO2 alone can not explain the temperature trend.

#221

what is the credibility of whom wrote on this website you posted tracker?

http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/new-gw-denialists-deceptive-lie-on-global-temperatures/

#222 The "chemical" data gives a measurement for a particular place and time (for instance the city the sample was taken in)


Is it not where most of the data collected in the past 100yrs come from?


What I want to know is whether the temperature recorded on thermometer on land represent the radiatian exchange on the stratosphere.

Is the energy budget fair based on surface temperature?

Re 225:



this relationship over a 100yr span is very weak, thus CO2 alone can not explain the temperature trend.

Another common red herring people are throwing out. No climatologist has been claiming that CO2 ALONE explains all temperature trends. It would indeed be stupid and absurd to assert this. Models used by climatologists incorporate a host of forcing and feedback factors, including dust, volcanic aerosols, ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns, solar irradiance variation, surface albedo change, cloud cover, other greenhouse gases, and so on ad nauseam. What the models do predict is that the role of anthropogenic CO2 in this picture is significant, and growing larger.

So why are the IPCC models failing to predict even decadal oscillations?

Re #228:

You shouldn't even acknowledge the claim that somehow our understanding of CO2 is flawed. In previous posts, crucilandia has demonstrated that he doesn't believe in the physical/chemical mechanism by which CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. He's not your average skeptic, but he has yet to produce the peer-reviewed research to back his claim that CO2 cannot act as a GHG.

Re #229:

Because that's not how the models work. For starters, the IPCC doesn't own or control all the models in use around the world; most are independently owned and operated, while experiments run using them and accompanying experimental data is widely available.

The more important point is that a climate model isn't intended as a weather prediction apparatus. A climate model cannot be used to spin up the atmosphere and see exactly how it will proceed in yearly or monthly resolution for the next 100 years. Your assertion that somehow the models are flawed because they don't accurately and minutely track decadal oscillations is extraneous on two points: 1) these oscillations are used as flux corrections in some models to bring them into alignment with historical climate observations; and 2) the point of the model is to study long term trends, not point phenomena

When will you climate skeptics get this through your head? A run of a climate model is not a forecast. It's a projection based on our understanding of the atmosphere (which is tuned and verified by ensuring that it can reproduce historical conditions which we have well documented) which is designed to test either of two things - the attribution of climate change to certain forcings, or the detection of climate change while certain forcings are present.

That's it. There isn't anything else to it. It's that simple and straightforward.

Al Gore on NPR

“And as we’re talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated,” Gore said. “And last year a catastrophic storm from last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China – and we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.”

22,000 dead now! How many more must die before the scientist computer model my idea?

Dead are thrown into rivers as the living wait for aid

BOGALAY, Myanmar (CNN) -- Homeless children watched Tuesday as solemn men unceremoniously dropped dead bodies into the river of this southern Myanmar township.

Link

Cruci,

Your going on my ignore list. Your debating style and your lack of understanding of the basic science behind climate science make it a complete waste of time to deal with you.

Your latest statement regarding our understanding of changes in CO2 levels shows a fundamental ignorance of the science.

So query me if you want, but I'm deaf to your babble.

Sebastianjer posted:

Al Gore on NPR

%u201CAnd as we%u2019re talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated,%u201D Gore said. %u201CAnd last year a catastrophic storm from last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China %u2013 and we%u2019re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.%u201D

I wish Gore would stick to the science. This is so unprofessional. He should stop while he's ahead instead of making a fool of himself. I almost feel sorry for him. I think he brings up a lot of good points and has increased awareness about the climate, but please. Leave the speculation at home.