I wonder what you make of this “Keeling Curve.” I especially wonder what you make of the inset–which can be seen to oscillate on the actual graph of this ‘curve’ below the inset.
This might be a very teachable moment.
I await your brilliant responses.
73 Replies to “Pop Quiz for Climatistas”
Hint: What do the oscillations mean? What are they telling us?
Aren’t those cycles due to variation in plant consumption of CO2, which occurs mostly in the northern hemisphere?
I had assume that they were because most land mass is in the northern hemisphere, so the extra growth in the northern summer means that plants are taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. There are some nice animations of remotely sensed vegetation here (and the data can be downloaded too).
My guess would be that the seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2 is correlated with Oceanic primary production in the area.
As others have said, this is the result of Northern forests photosynthesising more during warmer months (and there being more land so more plants in the north). It’s also partly about the rate at which co2 mixes in the atmosphere, the amplitude is larger the further north you go.
Looking forward to the alternative explanation of this phenomenon…
I wonder what the “teachable” aspect to this is. Perhaps “CO2 is plant food”?
A few inconvenient facts for our Atheistic chicken little global warming alarmists:
First off Global warming is not unprecedented
Moreover, CO2 does not directly correlate to temperature
Moreover, CO2 levels for optimal plant growth are actually much higher than they presently are
And to top all that off, Atheists have no explanation for why the climate on Earth has remained ‘surprising stable’ for billions of years in the first place
the following articles highlight just how ‘special’ Earth’s case turns out to be:
Moreover, besides having the just right conditions to enable long term plate tectonics, and a magnetic field, which is a necessary condition for advanced human life, solar systems which are able to maintain a proper ‘goldilocks’ orbit for billions of years for any planet like earth are much rarer than was previously thought:
Comparisons to other solar systems that have now been discovered bares out just how special the Earth’s stable solar system actually is:
In particular, the atmospheres, and chemical compositions, of exoplanets are turning out to be far more diverse than was expected:
In the following articles, Michael Denton and Eric Metaxus gives us a glimpse at just how special Earth’s atmosphere actually is:
In the following articles and video, Michael Denton further reflects on just how extraordinary the chemistry of Earth’s atmosphere is for human life:
Indeed, the earth and humans in particular are now shown to have far more significance in this universe than atheists had ever presupposed that we would have:
Moreover as was mentioned previously, although other atmospheres on other planets are quite different from Earth’s atmosphere, (in fact all other planets that we know about, with substantial atmospheres, all have opaque atmospheres which do not allow sunlight to penetrate to their surfaces), It is important to note just how fine-tuned our atmosphere for visible light to penetrate it.
Thus in conclusion, the atheist’s assumption for a stable climate that is optimal for life is actually a hidden Theistic assumption on his part. On Atheism there simply is no reason to presuppose that the climate should have been ‘surprisingly stable’ for life for all these billions of years, or to presuppose that the climate will remain ‘surprisingly stable’ for any extended period of time hereafter.
Only on Theism is the assumption of a stable climate warranted:
“A few inconvenient facts for our Atheistic chicken little global warming alarmists…”
But the question asked was what explained the seasonal fluctuation in the inset plot. Do you have something to say about that?
There is NO teachable moment. This is because the Keeling Curve was falsely advertised as representing continuous recordings of CO2 from Mauna Loa and from Antartica.
Had this truly been the case, then it would have been interesting to see if the CO2 osciallation was due more to ocean currents rather than vegetation activity during springtime. (See more below)* But, alas, the basic Keeling Curve (above) seems to represent Mauna Loa alone. This, of course, changes everything, and rules out alternative mechanisms–for the time being.
*I’m convinced that the CO2 elevations come from the warming of the oceans, probably due to a heating up of the earth’s core. Recent evidence and studies seem to support such a theory.
Along these lines, let’s consider that the Keeling Curve gives us a good view of atmospheric CO2 levels. Over the last 60 years it’s gone from 315 ppm to almost 405 ppm.
Now, further consider this: the amount of CO2 produced by human fossil-fuel use is roughly 4% of the TOTAL CO2 cycle, i.e., CO2 that is released into the environment, and then absorbed by various objects, notably trees and vegetation.
Ask yourself this question: What would happen if all man-made CO2 ceased being made? Wouldn’t you expect atmospheric CO2 levels to fall by 4%? Then, contrariwise, the CO2 levels should only be 4% above the 315 ppm level. So, why are they 405 ppm?
IOW, let’s say you were filling up a sink with water, depending on the flow rate out of the sink, and the flow rate into the sink, there would be an equilibrium level of water in the sink. Now, if you increase the flow of water into the sink by 4%, you should expect the level to rise about 4%. If you restricted the flow by 4%, you’d expect the water level to drop by 4%.
So, the question remains? Why has atmospheric CO2 risen by 29% when humans have only added an additional 4% to the “total” atmospheric CO2 that is recycled every year?
The most plausible explanation is, again, that the ocean’s are heating up ever so slightly, and releasing CO2 condensate. IOW, this is simply a natural cycle. No need for hysteria.
OMFG… did you even think about ths?
If the amount of water going into the sink is more than the amount draining from it the water level will rise constantly. It doesn’t stop when it get’s to 4% more.
Human emissions are considerably greater than the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere in recent times, largely because the oceans are gaining not losing dissolved CO2 (you may have heard of ocean acidification).
I guess there was a learning moment in here after all.
Did you think about what you just wrote?
You’re acting as if the sink somehow got plugged up. If that were to have happened, then, yes, the sink would overflow. But, instead, you have a steady-state equation, with the increased in-flow increasing the out-flow, with a new equilibrium being established: i.e., the level in the sink will be relatively higher. (4% is not 50%, which could possibly be tolerated if the sink is deep enough)
What is this sentence supposed to mean? 4% is 4%.
And, BTW, “ocean acidification” is pure propaganda, intended to explain the “global warming,” oops!, the “climate change” hiatus. It’s bogus nonsense. Sophisticated bloviation,no more.
Why don’t you try this with your bathtub. Turn up the flow 4% and leave for the weekend. Bonus points if you live in a 2nd floor apartment. 😛
If the bathtub is “filling up,” then there is no established ‘equilibrium,’ and you would be foolish to leave the premises. However, if there is an equilibrium, then what becomes critical is the relationship between the added rise in water level (which increases the ‘pressure’ felt by the water issuing forth from the sink) and the flow rate.
Even CO2 silliness presumes that an equilibrium existed prior to man-made emissions. So, nice try, but equilibrium CO2 levels should be, roughly, about 4% higher, and no more. Are we to believe that a system capable of handling 24 times more than man-made emissions is going to be run off the road by the additional 4%? Who can believe such tripe?
There was a “little Ice Age” back in the 1700’s. How did that end? Man-made emissions?
Would you like to proffer some explanation?
Nice to have you back. I love this:
“The sky is falling!! The sky is falling!!”
You have to remember that Warmists (presumably like daveS and mullers_ratchet) are committed to The Narrative, and therefore cannot process even a little adverse information.
They can’t distinguish that rational thought may exist outside of the Global Warming paradigm.
In layman’s terms, they are brainwashed.
So I’m guessing daveS and m_r know the C02 cycle with certainty due to their tireless study of it between UD blog comments.
For the sink example, increased height may change that out-flow slightly, but derterming wether a given in-flow will reach a new equilibrium height is not straigtfoward and depends on the shape of the sink (among other things). It’s certainly not true that because the rate of inflow icnreases by 4% the volume of the sink should increase by the same amount only!
Also, the atmosphere is not a bathtub.
4% is the human controbution to the flux of CO2 (the in-flow). What I’m trying to tell you is that the amount of CO2 we’ve added in the last few decades is considerably greater than the amount that has accrued in the atmosphere. Very hard to blame natural causes given this fact. (The rest of it has gone into the ocean, which is why (whether you belive it or not) the ocean’s disoved CO2 has risen and pH has fallen).
Indeed. What I intended was that you fill the tub to some particular level (say 50%) and then adjust the tap until it is at equilibrium.
Then increase the flow by 4%. What happens from that point on would depend on the specifics, as mullers_ratchet stated. Without more information, I don’t think we can say whether the water level will increase only slightly or whether the tub will overflow.
I don’t know anything about atmospheric sciences; I’ll stick to bathtubs.
The “acidification” scheme reminds us here at UD of evolutionary explanations: all of them are ex post facto. Another name for them is this: excuses.
Global warmists, intent on explaining why temperatures are not rising even as CO2 levels are rising–that is, the Keeling Curve, have come up with this notion. It is no more than ‘hand-waving,’ a la most ‘evolutionary’ explanations of the facts.
As to the 4%, again, if humans stopped producing fossil fuel emissions, would the total CO2 in the atmosphere “go down” 4% each year until it became 0%? The obvious answer is “no.” And since CO2 levels won’t keep going ‘down’ if fossil fuels are no longer burned, then what makes you think that CO2 levels will keep going ‘up’?
This makes no sense. So, we look for another answer (and, it’s easy): CO2 condensates found in the ocean are slowly finding their way into the atmosphere because the oceans are warming up, ever so slightly.
For Warmists, every question about a very complex weather system resolves into protecting the AGW story. LOL Its funny to watch.
Based on further analysis of the sink analogy, do you agree that it’s not necessarily the case that CO2 levels would fall by only 4% if humans stopped producing CO2 emissions?
“The “acidification” scheme reminds us here at UD of evolutionary explanations: all of them are ex post facto. Another name for them is this: excuses.”
I don’t claim to be an expert on global warming and climate change, but I do know a bit about the oceans. CO2 is seldom a limiting nutrient in the ocean, it is usually nitrogen and/or phosphorus. The oceans act as a sink for CO2, through algal growth and subsequent death, and through incorporation in shells and corals. However, if the amount of CO2 entering the ocean exceeds the amount incorporated into organisms and shells, then the ocean becomes more acidic, which it is. Whether this is due to global warming, I don’t know. I leave those conclusions to the experts in the field.
I need more details.
Well, I’m simply essentially saying that without more details, we cannot say whether the CO2 concentration would fall by only 4% if humans stopped producing CO2 emissions.
Isn’t that correct? I don’t know what the new equilibrium would be, but it’s not at all clear that it would be ~390 ppm (4% less than the current level) based only on the sink analogy.
PS to my #27: I can envision a scenario where, for example, turning a faucet down by 50% would allow the tub/sink to drain completely (i.e., the level would decrease by 100%).
First off, c02 is not a well mixed gas as NASA’s own data reveals, and it is heavier than air – see article. This is extremely important as you have yet another key assumption (Like the falsified assumption Al Gore used as a “smoking gun”, that atmospheric c02 drives up temps, instead we found temps drive out more c02). So what you get from a sensor on a volcano is background c02 at a particular altitude, and particular latitude – they also apply a 70 year smoothing average to this data (just like they did when picking the absolute lowest ICE core c02 proxy data- then moved it over 35 years to have it magically line up perfectly with the Keeling curve), and the calibration rights to this and other “official” sensors around the globe are in the hands of former IPCC members. The well mixed gas concept was assumed from the get go – in fact the IPCC through out 9K regional chemical analysis of c02 during the 20th century, other very important stomatal proxy evidence. So from the very lowest values they could pick, they then smoothed it with a 70 year average to take out the inconvenient normal variations with time which can be large – in fact it was well accepted before this nonsense, that c02 was at least 425ppm in the early 1940’s and almost as high two other times in the 20th century – so from the ground up, the make the data fit the theory, and they ignore graph that clearly showed a temp rise from the late 1920’s to the early 40’s, AND hide the 2.4F cooling from the late 40’s through the 70’s – these are their own graphs, and even their own words contradict what they say now. The entire “thoery” is built out of fraud from the start. As Willie Soon tries to point out to us, almost everything that lives produces c02, and many abiotic systems as well. Example – plain old soil puts out 9X the amount of c02 than ALL of man’s activities, termites 2X the c02 than man’s use of FF. This is not science, it is a purposefully non-falsifiable thoery – if it were evaluated as other non-political hypotheses, it would be thrown out in a heartbeat. If you have to heavily alter existing and current data, use less and less ground temp stations, and use mainly those that suffer from UHI effects, get rid of the medieval warm period and get caught in emails that you had to do it to make your point, when allow a warmunist activist admin privileges on wiki, and he hides well over 100 papers about the ice age scare of the 70’s, and still call yourself scientists then you should feel very ashamed over this agenda driven bull. http://drtimball.com/2013/why-.....formation/ https://co2insanity.com/2011/09/04/top-scientists-in-heated-debate-over-%E2%80%98-slaying-of-greenhouse-gas-theory/
Warmers simply do not care if they waste- someone else’s time, someone else’s money, science’s credibility, and my patience.
They made a squiggly line that goes up on the right end, and by a God they don’t have any evidence for, you’re gonna become a believer in it, and if you don’t, they’ll hate you for it.
Why are you like this? What would happen if you just admitted you didn’t know very much abotu this topic, and perhaps you had it all wrong?
This last comment is just strange.
Where did you get this from? Acidification is not made up, it’s very clear that the ocean is absorbing CO2 and pH is lowerig as a result. It can’t be an “excuse” for the failure of temperature to rise because (i) it doesn’t provide an explanation as to why temps wouldn’t rise and (ii) temperatures are rising.
So what the hell are you on about?
Remember, you first made the ignorant claim that adding 4% to the flux would only lead to a 4% increase in the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Can you at least admit you had that wrong?
If we take fossil CO2 that has been out of the carbon cycle for millions of years and pump it into the atmosphere it will stay there (and be absorbed by the ocean). We know we are responsible for all of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere because our emissions are considerbly greater than the amount added. It’s really as simple as that.
If the recent increase in CO2 is coming from the oceans, where does all the CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels go? Rememember, the year-on-year increase is in the atmosphere is less than the amount we release (because a lot of it goes into the ocean).
If the extra atmospheric CO2 is coming from an unknown source in the ocean, where is all out CO2 hiding?
Maybe my recollection of all this is wrong, but what I remember is some statement made within the last year, or two, saying that the reason for the global warming hiatus is that the ocean’s have been absorbing CO2. Again, maybe I’m wrong, but that’s what I remember.
Just found this.
As to increased CO2 production, see this graph taken from Antartica ice cores. CO2 production begins to skyrocket in the early-t0-mid 1800’s. So, I guess humans have been putting 4% extra CO2 into the atmosphere for over 150 years.
Or, maybe, the earth’s core has warmed up, with the concomitant heating up of the oceans, which then release CO2. Much more plausible.
Really, what is wrong with you?
The. Oceans. Are. Gaining. CO2.
Did you look at the graph? Please explain the exponential rise of CO2 levels in the Antartica ice cores starting in the 1800’s. Was the ocean “gaining” CO2 then? And, if it was, then WHERE did all the extra CO2 come from?
If you can’t answer that question, then realize you stopped thinking a long time ago.
You may have heard of the industrial revolution…
“Did you look at the graph? Please explain the exponential rise of CO2 levels in the Antartica ice cores starting in the 1800’s.“
I think that Mullers_ratchet explained this. This is further supported by the dramatic increase in lead deposition in Anartica in the 1800s as recorded in the ice cores. Atmospheric circulation and the climate of the Antarctic, make it very good at recording historic conditions.
dated Oct 2017…
Great Barrier Reef Returning to Life
Graph of Climate Change…
Last Thousand Years European Climatic Changes
What human influence led to the Medieval Optimum?
What caused Little Ice Age?
How does Modern Era compare to both Medieval Optimum and Little Ice Age?
What is worse. To little CO2? Or more CO2?
What amount of CO2 is good for plants and vegetation?
A different opinion on ocean acidification
by Jim Steele…
How NOAA and Bad Modeling Invented an “Ocean Acidification” Icon: Part 1 – Sea Butterflies
Are the Oceans’ Upper Layers Really Acidifying?
I would usually indulge a gish-galloper, but this made me laugh…
Do you know what data was used to reconstruct that temperature? Or where the graph comes from?
I formally draw your attention to a corrective regarding a term of abuse and slander you have resorted to yet again:
I suggest that in future you refrain yourself from such a trollish reference.
what a cast of characters this place has! “Formally”? you’re “formally” telling me you don’t like a turn of phrase?
Let me hereby formally inform you that I consider the phrase “gish gallop” accurately describes DATCG’s diversionary tactics. For this reason, I must further inform you that I will continue to use this phrase as and when I consider it to fairly and reasonably describe the actions of a commenter on this website.
you have obviously failed to read the linked corrective, and seem to imagine that gratuitously slandering someone now unable to defend himself, is a responsible pattern of behaviour.
Ilk duly recognised.
That’s a shame. Has DATCG been banned?
muller @ 40:
IPCC 1990 has a similar graph- it appears climate proxies were used along with actual temperature data
Note to muller- It’s only a “gish gallop” if you don’t have time to answer/ respond to all of it. And here that does not apply so clearly you are mistaken.
A possible alternative, albeit lacking pithiness:
This has similar meaning, but acknowledges some sensitivity to the late Dr Gish.
If this is supposed to be your reply to my question posed to you, then it is an ill-considered reply.
If you look at the above-mentioned graph, the rate of CO2 growth is rather linear, and steep.
Now, if the CO2 produced by industry is the cause of the rise in CO2, then the slope of the graph should directly reflect the amount of CO2 produced by industry.
So, then, in terms of today’s industrial production of CO2, what was the percentage of CO2 production in the 1850’s? Maybe one-twentieth of today, or one-fifth of one percent.
And what would it have been in early 1900? Or in 1940 or 1970?
IOW, if the “cause” of excess CO2, and hence CO2 growth in concentration, is industry, then the ‘graph’ should track with the industrial production of CO2 over time.
But, of course, it doesn’t. So, as I say, you gave an ill-considered response. Try again.
Honestly, why are you like this? You may have the worst ratio of confidence to knowledge I’ve ever run into.
“linear”, you think that graph is linear? That’s funny because in 34 you asked me to explain the “exponential” rise in CO2. THe rise is of course exponential, just as we’d expect if the atmospheric rise in CO2 was a consequence of industry.
But, in fact, it does. Check out Figure 1 here. The correlation coefficient for human cumulative CO2 emissions v atmospheric CO2 is 0.997!
So, let’s review the thread.
You start with the disparaging title and your own mistake in reading the keeling curve.
It soon became apparent that seasonal oscillations were well-understood and your cocky tone and “teaching moment” added up to exactly nothing.
You then made a strange mathematical error in claiming a 4% increase in the rate of inflow in a tub (or atmosphere) will lead to a 4% increase in volume. Rather than admitting your error you’ve just stopped talking about this idea.
Next, you came up with some half-remembered bollocks about ocean acidification being a made up excuse of a lack of recent warming despite ever-rising CO2. This betrays your ignorance of ocean acidification, recent temperature records or elementary physics. When you finally produced a 15-year-old press release to substantiate you claim it was talking about how the rise in CO2 was slower than it would be if there was no ocean sink.
You then jumped on the Antarctic ice core data, making a great deal of the fact the recent increase in CO2 starts in the 1850s or so. You first described the rate of increase as “exponential”, but when you had to weasel your way out of mistake you claimed it was linear. Why you got yourself into that mess I don’t know. Perhaps you were unaware of the industrial revolution or that burning coal produces CO2? Whatever the source of your ignorance, it’s perfectly obvious that the rapid onset of CO2 accumulation exactly at the time that humans started emitting a lot of CO2 is evidence for the fact humans emitted the extra CO2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere.
Most amazingly of all: even after making all of these impressive displays of ignorance you still think you are right and that your cockamamie theory about recent CO2 increases coming from the ocean is viable despite the clear evidence that the oceans are gaining and not losing CO2.
What kind of person puts up a track record like the one above and doesnt’ even stop to think they might be clueless about this topic?
UD Editors: Mullers_ratchet is no longer with us.
Carbon isotope ratios in the atmosphere also point to the increase largely coming from fossil fuels.
I started out saying this was a “possible” teaching moment.
How unfortunate it was that a “curve” that was said to arise from measurements at both Hawaii and Antartica turned out to be mostly from Hawaii due to the government cutting back funding for the South Pole portion of the metering.
The example of a sink with inflow and outflow was an example of an equilibrium, and came up because I stated this:
To assume that a small additional inflow would cause the sink to overflow only follows from the presumption that the outflow cannot become any greater. “On average,” a small 4% increase in an equilibrium flow situation would likely not greatly aggrevate the system.
You seem not to accept this at all. I can’t help you there.
I think your presumption is that ALL of human made CO2 is independent of the earth’s Carbon Cycle, and, so, causes CO2 levels to continually rise.
However, in the paper you link to, they state that “only about 40% of those emissions [anthropogenic CO2] have stayed in the atmosphere.” This means that 60% is being absorbed by the earth, and is part of the Carbon Cycle. So, is 60% absorbed? Or 80%? Or 100%?
We don’t know.
In fact, the purpose of that paper is to try and find out why this “only 40% of those emissions” has remained constant over five decades:
Think about this: the fraction of anthropogenic CO2 absorbed via the Carbon Cycle [AF] has remained constant for 50 years! Through all kinds of changes.
Do you remember writing this:
This is what we are being told. How would they know?
When they look under their microscopes, or analyze the atmosphere with their chromatographs, do some CO2 molecules say “man-made” while others say “terrestial”?
Maybe the number is simply made up. And maybe that’s why it remains constant. Have you considered that?
Then there’s this:
(From the beginning of their paper)
We’re dealing with “man-made” climate models. The old expression was: “Junk in; junk out.”
Why all this confidence in educated guesses? Better to look around and see what’s there.
What do we see? We see CO2 levels continue to rise, while global temperatures seem to have leveled off.
We see levels of cold and snow not seen in 35 years. If climate models are correct, then how can this happen when CO2 keeps going up?
In our part of the galaxy, there are two huge sources of heat: the sun (fusion), and the earth’s core (fission). If you want to explain an increase in heat, that’s where I would recommend looking first.
There’s a recent paper out that finds that the rate of glacier melt in Eastern Greenland is correlated to water temperatures. And, guess what, when they started looking aroun they found 11 vents underneath the melting glaciers, with one of the vents measuring about 7 miles across. Same thing recently happened in Antartica.
You’re entitled to your opinion; but, my bet is when scientists get around to doing real science, the answer to both rising CO2 levels and rising heat can be pinned principally to the earth’s core.
[Regretably, you can’t respond. I hope I’ve clarified some things.]
“When they look under their microscopes, or analyze the atmosphere with their chromatographs, do some CO2 molecules say “man-made” while others say “terrestial”?”
Not on a molecule by molecule basis. But carbon isotope ratios can tell them how much of the CO2 is from fossil fuels and how much from terrestrial sources and how much from the oceans.
You clicked on link but could not read it? It was used by Dr. Tim Ball.
Dr. Ball states in one of his articles…
“My prime area of research was climatology, particularly how climate changes over time and the impact of those changes on human history and the human condition.”
Here is his CV same site link…
Should I insult you now?
Are you not familiar with these time frames in Climate history?
Little Ice Age?
Here’s Wiki for you…
Before reconstruction of data was warmest period.
Wiki again has it,
“A 2009 study by Michael E. Mann et al., examining spatial patterns of surface temperatures shown in multi-proxy reconstructions finds that the Medieval Warm Period(Medieval Optimum), shows “warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally.”
Michael Mann gave us the infamous hockey stick, along with Hide the Decline. Does not surprise me he finds latest climate to be hotter than the past.
The Climate Models have continuously been wrong. They had to massage the data in the past, make it colder so that warming would look greater the last several decades.
No, still here 🙂 Glad you mentioned me in fact.
I see you complained about Science not being posted and discussed here enough on another post.
But I see Gpuccio showed you a post on the Sliceosome you could join in. I’ve not yet seen you comment or take part in the discussion.
Why not? It has been a good discussion. Scientist Arthur Hunt with expertise in RNA commented on the subject and offered up some points in opposition against Design and Irreducible Complexity. Challenging Gpuccio’s OP and raising information about Group II introns and evolution of the Spliceosome.
Please join in. Read Gpuccio’s OP and post some comments…
ET @45, yes IPCC has put it out before, but the hockey stick does begin to magically appear. They had to address climate models missing badly on their predictions and the steep upward pace of temps known as the Hockey Stick appeared by Michael Mann. Other scientist challenged. And remember, adjustments were made to lower past temps.
Here is what the IPCC shows …
Remember, the alarmist were predicting end of world Global Cooling in the 70s, prior to end of the world global warming.
I think Climate Models still are not good enough to predict 100 years into the future. They failed to predict the Great Pause and the Models trends were way off, running hot as a result.
lol@ “sliceosome” in #54, correction slice, slice Spliceosome.
Either way Bob @ 44, hope you read Gpuccio’s OP and join discussion.
Careful with that Sandwich Eugene…
Understanding the impact on Climate Change of convenience food: Carbon footprint of sandwiches
Stop eating sandwiches at restaurants & fast food joints?
Should everyone stop buying coffee at Starbucks now?
DATGC – good to see you are still here, and able to defend yourself.
I don’t want to get into spliceosomes, because that’s not my area of expertise.
PaV @ 48 –
mullers_ratchet @ 49 –
Actually, it’s quicker than exponential – I downloaded the Mauna Loa data and regressed the log of the concentration against time. The residuals still show clear curvature, and then regressing against time and time^2 give a positive quadratic coefficient.
If anyone is familiar with R and ants to play, this is my code:
# Read in data
fileMM <- "ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/produ....."
Data <- read.table(fileMM, header = FALSE, skip=0, na.strings = "-99.99")
names(Data) <- c("Year", "Month", "Date", "Average",
"Interpolated", "Trend", "days")
# Fit models: linear,
# log scale (=exponential model),
# log with quadratic time
mod.lin <- lm(Average ~ Date, data=Data )
mod.log1 <- lm(log(Average) ~ Date, data=Data)
mod.log2 <- lm(log(Average) ~ Date + I(Date^2), data=Data)
# Plot data and models
par(mfrow=c(2,1), mar=c(2,4,2,1), oma=c(2,0,0,0), las=1)
plot(Data$Date, Data$Average, type="l", xlab="",
ylab=expression(paste(CO, " concentration")),
plot(Data$Date, log(Data$Average), type="l", xlab="", ,
ylab=expression(paste("log ", CO, " concentration")),
lines(Data$Date[!is.na(Data$Average)], mod.log2$fitted.values, col=4)
mtext("Year", 1, outer=TRUE)
legend(1961, 5.99, c("Exponential", "Supra-exponential"),
(edits to removed tyops etc)
That’s pretty cool, Bob O’H, thanks.
Here’s a screenshot for anyone who just wants to see the plots.
Edit: I hope I didn’t make any copy/paste errors. The plots look like I expected, anyway.
All of that added CO2 and we are now only about 1.7 degrees F warmer than 1880. Heck it changes more than that day to day.
I’d be very interested at looking at this kind of information. Do you have any links?
“I’d be very interested at looking at this kind of information. Do you have any links?”
This provides a general overview. In short, the different sources of CO2 (terrestrial, oceanic and fossil fuels) have different ratios. For example, fossil fuels have no C14, terrestrial sources have less C13 than ocean sources. By analyzing the ratios in the atmosphere you can estimate the proportion from each source. And the changes over time. I don’t know if this type of comparison has been made on ice cores, but I would be surprised if it hasn’t.
Thanks for caring. Where did you think I “slandered” someone that I might be banned? 😉
Or did you miss Muller’s Gish reference towards me?
On the spliceosome, I see you don’t wish to comment. But it is a scientific post on the Spliceosome and well discussed.
Your contention is there’s not enough science post here? Yet you or Seversky and other detractors and opponents of ID who regularly comment here, often do not comment on many science post.
Maybe it’s not that there’s not enough? Maybe you’re just not interested in areas of science posted here?
What areas of science do you like to participate in and comment on? Besides Climate?
Because there are many post here on different areas of evolution, cosmology, etc.
Dr. Hunter has posted several recent entries on Evolution’s current issues.
Did you see them?
I just read rest of Muller’s angry comments. I’d missed them.
He did not address links on Ocean Acidification or on Great Barrier Reef recovery.
But doubled down on angry insults. And claimed they were diversions.
The links I posted were not “diversions” but relevant to Ocean Acidification opinions made by him and others.
If he disagreed with specifics about Great Barrier Reef Recovery or Ocean Acidification link I provided, he easily could have responded to them.
On CO2 increase in atmosphere. Here’s a study showing a decline by 20% thru 2014…
20% decline thanks to Plants and Global Warming Pause
I’m not sure how accurate the statement is on Plants causing a 20% decline. But it’s interesting to see that there was a decline. And how plants can benefit.
More on plant activity…
The question in light of the study posted above @66 on 20% decline.
Did Mauna Loa show similar decline during that period?
Speaking of C02…
“No matter what happens, cold, hot, wet, dry, extreme, calm, it’s all controlled by the MagicalMysticalMiracleMolecule. They haven’t moved the goalposts, they’ve installed them along the entire field perimeter.”
Pay attention Warmers, I’m not the only one who notices these things.
So the Warmers entire case rests on what they can scare you into, when the truth is the relationship between C02 and the weather system is not well-understood, to say the least.
I too would like to know more about this. The paper is way too technical for me, but the linked phys.org article states:
Eyeballing the graph in the OP, the blue curve is indeed quite straight between 2002 and 2014 (and is even slightly concave-down), as opposed to its concave-up behavior on average.
I looked at the link, and the 14C distinction revolves around the “age of the atmosphere,” and isn’t, as I see it, a reliable way of distinguishing between “fossil fuel” carbon, and natural and man-made sources of 14C.
If you invoke the 13C differences, this acknowledges that plants and trees around the world are actually absorbing fossil fuel generated carbon, which was part of my argument regarding the equilibrium equations involved in a sink/source dynamic.
My sense in looking around, is that the most important and critical form of photosynthesis takes place ocean-born populations of phytoplankton and zooplankton. The size of these populations has all kinds of things that affect it. So, I can see a scenario in which these populations could easily increase in size.
IOW, if you increase the population of plankton by 4%, I don’t see how this increased population size wouldn’t absorb man-made emissions. So, it’s hard to reach conclusions about just what is going on. There are many factors at play, with all of this ending up being quite complex. Our climate models might then, at most, represent our best guess. Should we ‘bet’ trillions of dollars on this?
The corparate giants around the world answer, “yes.” Caution is due.
“IOW, if you increase the population of plankton by 4%, I don’t see how this increased population size wouldn’t absorb man-made emissions. ”
CO2 is not a limiting nutrient in the world’s oceans. The size of the phytoplankton populations, and therefore the amount of CO2 that they can convert to biomass, is not dependent on the CO2 concentration. It is dependent on nitrogen and/or phosphorus. So, unless you want to increase the amount of raw sewage that we dump into the oceans, which will cause all sorts of other problems, the amount of CO2 that the oceans can process is finite.
In related news James Cook University @jcu censures a climate skeptic – help him fight back
It looks like one scientist dared to challenge the science behind the alleged demise of the Great Barrier Reef and is now paying a heavy price for that.