What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?

  • 245 Replies
  • 68239 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #100 on: 23/06/2013 17:02:58 »
bc says
Well, there is more CO2 and there is warming but there is no cooling

henry says
who says it is warming? you have simply not been paying attention to me in the thread of this post?
earlier on this thread we noted that it has been cooling for at least one whole solar cycle
[link snipped because it messes up the formatting of the page]
Note that this result from various data sets is confirmed by my own results which JP says I may not quote...here? JP and your  team has some peculiar rules when it comes to global warming....

If you want to go nit picking you could also ask: how long has is not been warming? That leaves those poor souls whose miserable lives depend on this global warming scam some stay of execution.
e.g.:  this post contains graphs of running trends in global surface temperature anomalies for periods of 12+
 and 16 years. They indicate that we have not seen a warming hiatus this long since the 1970s.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/21/may-2013-global-surface-landocean-temperature-anomaly-update/

However, my own results for the drop in global maxima will show you that the current cooling trend will continue, until at least 2040....or there about.

So, there is no warming trend, and there has not been any, for at least 16 years. You, get on with that. I ask you: why do you keep referring  back to it as if it (i.e. the "global" warming) were truly still happening?




It seems that you were too busy asking if I was paying attention to pay attention to what I already said.
"But nobody takes such a short snapshot seriously so your conclusions are not valid. (and the data might be questionable too, but that's not the real issue)"

So the reply to "So, there is no warming trend, and there has not been any, for at least 16 years. You, get on with that. I ask you: why do you keep referring  back to it as if it (i.e. the "global" warming) were truly still happening?
" is, that it is warming.
Your assertion is like saying it's cooler this evening than it was at lunchtime, so the world is cooling.


Here's the real data
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/RFC12_Fig1.jpg

Why are you pretending that the right hand half of that graph is lower than the left hand half?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #101 on: 23/06/2013 18:11:04 »
bc says
Here's the real data
henry says
this is the problem.
people like Cook who have an agenda to "save" their jobs

in this respect I can only trust my own data
(I know that I have no ulterior motive but finding the truth)
which I took from www.tutiempo.net
particularly the drop in maximum temps. (that nobody is looking at)
see here
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47181.0


Don't forget: automatic recording with thermo couples only began since the seventies
so how are you going to compare older data with automatically recorded data?

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #102 on: 23/06/2013 19:04:48 »
bc says
Here's the real data
henry says
this is the problem.
people like Cook who have an agenda to "save" their jobs

in this respect I can only trust my own data
(I know that I have no ulterior motive but finding the truth)
which I took from www.tutiempo.net
particularly the drop in maximum temps. (that nobody is looking at)
see here
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47181.0


Don't forget: automatic recording with thermo couples only began since the seventies
so how are you going to compare older data with automatically recorded data?
OK, so, in order to save his job, Cook tells the truth. There's nothing gets a scientist sacked faster than getting caught faking data.
Glad we have got that sorted otherwise it might look like you were making a libellous statement about someone and that would be a breach of the rules and would get you kicked off the site (in very much the same way that lying would get a scientist sacked).


"Don't forget: automatic recording with thermo couples only began since the seventies
so how are you going to compare older data with automatically recorded data?"
WTF?
Do you think thermocouples are magic?
It's like asking how you can compare peoples heights when they used to be measured in inches, but now they use centimetres.

There's nothing special about a thermocouple, or  the length of a mercury column. Just for the record, neither is the "official" means for establishing temperature.
But you can't use a constant volume gas thermometer (extrapolated to zero pressure) to measure the weather because it takes too long.
So you use some sort of surrogate. As long as you can calibrate the surrogate, it doesn't matter what you choose to use.
A thermocouple is handy if you want to log data automatically, but a mercury in glass thermometer is just fine for most places (you would need an alcohol thermometer for some very cold places).
Or, if you wanted, you could use the 16O: 18O isotope ratio in calcium carbonate.
That last one would be a bit weird- but it has the advantage of recording the data for you in seashells.

So, the biggest data sets all agree that the world is warming. The sea levels and shrinking ice caps support that.
Why should I listen to you?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #103 on: 24/06/2013 18:51:18 »
BC says
So, the biggest data sets all agree that the world is warming.

Henry says
no, the biggest data sets show it has been cooling for the past 11 years (which is the equivalent of 1 solar cycle)
which you (&cook&co) say is not significant
They also show that it has not been warming for about 15 or almost 16 years now,
which you (&cook&co) say is also not significant
So, the biggest data sets all agree that the world is not warming.


Now I (we)  know from my own data set that it has been warming (naturally) since around 1951,
until 1998, when we changed the signal
If you want to claim that it has also been warming before that time, i.e. before 1951
you must show me a calibration certificate of a thermometer from, say 1925?


My results show that we started cooling down from the new millennium and we will continue to cool,
until 2039 or 2040\,despite of what Cook and co or anybody says.
But I am happy if you could come with another interpretation (fit) of my results as reported in my tables?


« Last Edit: 24/06/2013 19:00:52 by MoreCarbonOK »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #104 on: 24/06/2013 23:43:50 »
OK, let's look at your "model": it's a sine wave.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
It's based on a dozen years or so of data.
There are two ways to test it.
We can look at the predictions and wait to see if they are true or, we can look further back at the real historical data and see if it works.

Guess what! it fails miserably.

Now, your next question was
"If you want to claim that it has also been warming before that time, i.e. before 1951
you must show me a calibration certificate of a thermometer from, say 1925?"
Why?
This guy is on record as calibrating thermometers about two hundred years earlier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Celsius
He's kind of famous for it.
Anyway, here's one from before 1951 (what had 1925 got to do with anything?
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vintage-EX-MOD-Thermometer-Cert-Signed-C-G-Darwin-Whirling-Meteor-/321024094115

And then you go back to an invalid model mapping the temperature to a sine wave.

"But I am happy if you could come with another interpretation (fit) of my results as reported in my tables?"
If I get bored, I might.
« Last Edit: 24/06/2013 23:48:54 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #105 on: 25/06/2013 07:10:44 »
BC says
we can look further back at the real historical data and see if it works.

Guess what! it fails miserably.

henry says

you have global data on maxima?

my data for 47 weather stations is complete from 1974?

there is no other fit than the sine wave for those data on maxima,
unless you want to freeze us to death in the next few decades...?

note that below that global graph there is one from a weather station in Alaska,
which I found had good data on maxima from 1942, which confirmed the sine wave.

In terms of comparison, I am saying that you cannot possibly compare all
results from 1900-1935 and bring this into the equation,
which is why I asked you to provide me with a calibration certificate from 1925.
(they never started calibrating thermometers before the time of the certificate that you quoted. Once manufactured, they were considered "good")
In addition, you must consider the way of recording i.e automatic versus human, at intervals (especially if you want to use means instead of maxima)







*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #106 on: 25/06/2013 11:07:16 »
I wonder if you can prove this slur on the competency of the scientists of the day
"(they never started calibrating thermometers before the time of the certificate that you quoted. Once manufactured, they were considered "good")"
If not, perhaps it would be polite of you to apologise and withdraw it.
The reason that the certificate I showed has been kept is not that calibrations were unusual at that time, but because of the signatory. Calibrations were, of course, commonplace.
Of course, in reality there were, at and before that time, systems in place to ensure the correct calibration of thermometers.
http://www.bipm.org/en/si/history-si/temp_scales/its-27.html

This "there is no other fit than the sine wave for those data on maxima, unless you want to freeze us to death in the next few decades...?" is just silly.
What I want  doesn't affect the reality that you can plot a quadratic or other function through that data. Given how little data you actually have, it would be difficult to say that the change wasn't linear.

"you have global data on maxima?"
Nope, and I don't need it.
I have got data for averages (and I already cited it).
If the average is slowly rising, but the maxima are following a sine wave, it would follow that the deviations from the mean were, in the past, much much bigger in order to keep the average on track.
But such data would have been noted and commented on In particular, it would mean the weather in the past was more variable than it is now- but that's the opposite of what the historical record tells us.

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4312
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #107 on: 25/06/2013 11:14:18 »
The only graph here showing a decline in maximum temperatures seems to come from just 1 site, not 47 sites. The measurements from 47 sites show no such downturn.

Naturally, it is best to have regularly calibrated thermometers. Knowing how vital these temperature measurements become for predicting weather, I am sure that all Navy vessels and Post Office weather stations would have a standard procedure for regularly calibrating all their equipment (including thermometers). Commercial vessels may not be so rigidly disciplined - but there you have the benefit that some devices that might read a bit high will be balanced by those that read a bit low - and they will both be updated by new ones when they drop or are otherwise broken.

There are certainly some blips in the ocean temperature records - a significant one is during the 2nd World War. But after the war, they returned to previous methods & locations for measuring ocean temperatures, and the pre-war upward trend continues.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #108 on: 25/06/2013 11:32:50 »
The only graph here showing a decline in maximum temperatures seems to come from just 1 site, not 47 sites. The measurements from 47 sites show no such downturn.

henry says
the blue in the top graph there is the result (average) of the drop in maximum temperatures coming from 47 weather stations.
(you have to go to my tables to see the individual results of each of those  47 weather stations)

the blue in the bottom graph is the result of one station that had good data on maxima going back to 1942
 
the red in both graphs is my best fit for the available data.
I am open for other proposals from you if you think we can make another best fit?


« Last Edit: 25/06/2013 22:31:08 by peppercorn »

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #109 on: 25/06/2013 11:39:35 »
BC says
The reason that the certificate I showed has been kept

henry says
but that one is from 1948?

I asked you to prove to me that thermometers in weather stations were calibrated regularly before 1930?


*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #110 on: 25/06/2013 18:00:53 »
Do you think it's the glass tube that changes, or the mercury in it?
Surely you realise that saying "all the thermometers were wrong" is an absurd bit of clutching at straws.
Some might have read high, some low. But what we are looking at is a change so calibration errors are pretty much self cancelling anyway.
However, I'd still like to see the evidence on which you base your claim that all the people measuring temperatures were incompetent.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #111 on: 25/06/2013 20:35:04 »
BC says
Some might have read high, some low. But what we are looking at is a change so calibration errors are pretty much self cancelling anyway.
However, I'd still like to see the evidence on which you base your claim that all the people measuring temperatures were incompetent.
Henry says
well...  we are only looking at a few tenths of a degree C (or K)  of warming from 1900-1950
which might be completely wrong if the thermometers were wrong?
You keep returning the question to me, but I asked you first:
from what time onward in history did we start calibrating thermometers at regular intervals?
I think it was only after the war. ./.as proven by the certificate you provided....

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #112 on: 25/06/2013 21:41:41 »
Well, I guess I can't help you. I pointed out that they have been calibrating them since 1889, yet you say they weren't  doing it until WWII.
 And, I am returning the question to you for a reason.
You made an assertion that a group of people who are no longer in a position to defend themselves were not competent.
You should be able to back that up.
So, did you just make it up?

Also, how plausible is it that all of the thermometers are exactly as out of true as eachother. And they are all drifting in the same way?
Because that's what it would take to explain away the change in temperatures.
Can you think of a plausible explanation?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #113 on: 26/06/2013 08:28:00 »
BC says
 I pointed out that they have been calibrating them since 1889, yet you say they weren't  doing it until WWII.
Henry says
I asked: from what time onward in history did we start re-calibrating thermometers at regular intervals?
I think it was only after the war. ./.as proven by the certificate you provided....
But I asked you to produce a certificate, any certificate, from before 1930.
I am sure they must have been calibrated, once perhaps, when they left the factory,
(if they were made in factories)

However, not only am I interested to see at what intervals the thermometers were re-calibrated before the war,
(which indeed was probably not done regularly at all until after 1945, going by the certificate you produced,
unless you prove me otherwise),
I am also interested to know from those certificates what the accuracy was.
I remember that even in my time, a mercury thermometer with one degree C divided in ten portions,
with an accuracy of 0.05 was quite rare and expensive.
So I am asking you again to provide me the certificates, any certificate,  to show me what the accuracy was before 1930.
If the accuracy was in fact only about 0.5, as I suspect you will find, then the the current warming rate of 0,6 or 0.7K per century,
can be considered questionable....and seriously challenged.
Curious, that you refuse to consider that better accuracy and excluding human involvement with the reading,
would or could  lead to different results?
You will find that in the end it could be exactly as I said: we only warmed some 0.3 or 0.4K  from 1950 - 2000
and we will cool by about 0.3 or 0.4K until 2040,
as we follow the global Gleissberg solar/weather cycle.....
So by 2040, we will all be back to where we were in 1950.....
Blaming natural forces all makes more sense, than blaming the poor 0.01% CO2, does it not?

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #114 on: 26/06/2013 12:13:31 »
"I think it was only after the war. ./.as proven by the certificate you provided...."
That doesn't prove what you say it does.
Why are you pretending that it does? Do you not understand that if I show you today's paper it doesn't prove that there was no newspaper yesterday?

"I asked: from what time onward in history did we start re-calibrating thermometers at regular intervals?"
You also haven't explained why you think thermometers need to be recalibrated- I asked (and you ignored it) whether you think it's the glass that changes or the mercury.
Well, which is it?
While I'm at it,
"I remember that even in my time, a mercury thermometer with one degree C divided in ten portions, with an accuracy of 0.05 was quite rare and expensive."
So what?
Before the times you are speaking of, they had thermometers that could read to a thousandth of a degree, albeit that you wouldn't use one for measuring the weather.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beckmann_thermometer
They were not cheap- but, because people were prepared to put a fair bit of time and effort into this sort of thing, they would be prepared to spend the money too.

"If the accuracy was in fact only about 0.5, as I suspect you will find, then the the current warming rate of 0,6 or 0.7K per century,
can be considered questionable....and seriously challenged."
No, not really.
because the accuracy isn't the issue here, it's the repeatability that matters.
Also, not all the thermometers would misread in the same direction. So the errors would cancel out.
If you have a hundred measurements -say ten people and ten readings, then the average of those reading will be about 10 times better than the error on each thermometer.


"Curious, that you refuse to consider that better accuracy and excluding human involvement with the reading, would or could  lead to different results?"
It's curious, no- let's face it- dishonest that you claim that I didn't consider it. I did. That's why what I said was that the average of a large number of results will not be affected much if the individual results are made more accurate.
I'm allowed to say that because it follows from a proven theorem in maths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem

"Blaming natural forces all makes more sense, than blaming the poor 0.01% CO2, does it not?"
No.
It's the equivalent (as I have said before) of having 3 blankets on the bed, adding a forth, and saying that you don't expect it to make any difference.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #115 on: 26/06/2013 19:47:41 »
BC says
blaming natural forces all makes more sense, than blaming the poor 0.01% CO2, does it not?"
No.
henry says
Yes, it is exactly like you said:
let us have a planet, let us add some CO2, let us see if the temperature goes up,
IT DID NOT, for at least 15 years and counting, so that is NOT it....
Pity you could not shed me some light on the accuracy of thermometers used 75-100 years ago,
in weather stations, but I will still carry on looking for that elusive certificate from those days...
In the meantime, here is a good evaluation done by one of your countrymen,

http://climate.arm.ac.uk/publications/global-warming-man-or-nature.pdf

He got it right, mostly, just by looking at the available data, he even mentioned the Gleissberg cycle!

I think he just went wrong in the end with the mechanisms that he mentioned  for the warming/cooling, I find it is only partly correct, or it is actually a combination, but very few people have that figured out right yet......

For the rest, this whole paper sums up nicely what I have been trying to tell you.
Rgrds.
H


*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #116 on: 26/06/2013 19:54:11 »
This is a nice article on how prediction and scientific modelling works, and links to peer-reviewed work offering a possible explanation for the past decade of temperature readings.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2013/05/15/global-warming-slowdown-retrospectively-predicted/

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4904
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #117 on: 26/06/2013 23:55:55 »
Historic data on global temperature is at best "suspect". Most of the earth's surface is covered by the oceans, for which we have virtually no reliable surface temperature data before the 1950s. Nobody had measured any temperatures in Antarctica before 1900, and the arctic ice cap had not been greatly explored until the 20th century either.

Whilst plenty of thermometers existed in the 18th and 19th centuries, manufacturing variations and the lack of national and international standards laboratories meant that only 0 and 100 deg C measurements can be regarded as equivalent - any intermediate temperature report, and certainly any report below 0 deg C, must be regarded as having a tolerance of at least +/- 0.1 degree and a difference of 0.2 degree between two adjacent thermometers at a nominal 10 deg C would not be remarkable.

Until 1910, accurate (better than 0.5 degree) air temperature measurements were of little interest, and until the adoption of the Stevenson screen around 1870, there was no agreed method of making such measurements. Surface air temperature is principally of interest to aviators, and we can consider the second world war as the beginning of consistent temperature recording of sufficient accuracy, frequency, and precise location, to detect global changes. The most complete data sets therefore date from 1945, when the world's air forces were making 4-hourly readings with credible instruments at thousands of airfields and a few ships. The number and frequency of manual reports decreased  thereafter, and their nature changed: most wartime airfields were rural grass strips, nearly all of which closed in the following 15 years, and most of the remainder acquired extensive tarmac and concrete surfaces, with canvas tents being replaced by steel and concrete buildings. Temperature reporting from rural fields nowadays is far less frequent as they are mainly used by light aircraft, well below any critical loading: the best modern data comes from large urban airports whose microclimates (thanks, inter alia, to several tons of fuel being burned every hour inside the boundary fence) are far from typical of the "natural" area even a few miles away.

It is thus fair to say that any non-satellite data is at best sparse, poorly representative of any meaningful "mean global temperature", and seriously biassed by microclimates that become more atypical with time. If we add in the probable technical uncertainties of ambient temperature measurement before, say, 1900, the scientific conclusion must be that there is no credible data on mean global surface temperature before 1940 or after 1960.       

Satellite data should be more reliable, but there have been several major corrections and recalibrations since 1970, and the magnitude of these step changes is commensurate with any supposed real change in the underlying measurand.

In a word, we have no actual data sufficient to support an assertion of a consistent global warming or cooling trend  within the last 150 years or so. We do have good proxy data suggestive of massive climate shifts over geological history, but nothing of sufficient reliability to implicate recent human activity as causal.   
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4904
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #118 on: 27/06/2013 00:25:08 »
Quote
"I asked: from what time onward in history did we start re-calibrating thermometers at regular intervals?"
You also haven't explained why you think thermometers need to be recalibrated- I asked (and you ignored it) whether you think it's the glass that changes or the mercury.
Well, which is it?

The glass, as it happens. There are three major problems: change in volume of the bulb (it is subject to thermal expansion, creep, and distortion by atmospheric compression), variations of stem bore diameter (which determines the precision of intermediate readings between the fixed points) , and the fact that mercury freezes around -40C, making our favourite meteorological thermometer useless over a good 10% of the earth's surface and most of the atmosphere above it!

Quote
"I remember that even in my time, a mercury thermometer with one degree C divided in ten portions, with an accuracy of 0.05 was quite rare and expensive."
So what?
Before the times you are speaking of, they had thermometers that could read to a thousandth of a degree, albeit that you wouldn't use one for measuring the weather.

There's the rub. Beckmann and other high-sensitivity thermometers generally measure changes over a small range of temperature, where the absolute value of the starting point is unimportant. I spent a long time (13 years!) working on devices to detect a microdegree change in local temperature but with no absolute reference point. To detect a meteorological trend even in the UK, where the climate is far from extreme, you need to be able to measure absolute temperature to better than 0.01 degree over a range of -30 to +40 degrees, for about 100 years.  I don't know of any device that has actually done this.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #119 on: 27/06/2013 11:43:46 »
The glass tubing does, indeed, creep. But properly made thermometers are annealed carefully to minimise this. Also, it's a known effect and would have been one of the reasons why they would have know that they needed to check the calibrations from time to time.
The freezing point of mercury doesn't change over time- in fact you can use it as a fixed point for calibration.
The fact that people have to use alcohol, or pentane in low temperature thermometers isn't really an issue.

It's trivially simple to check the constancy of the bore of a piece of tubing of the sort used in thermometers, all you need is a drop of coloured water.
It would be an interesting exercise to consult the old chemistry journals and look up the reported melting points of pure chemicals when they were first reported and compare those values with modern measurements. That would let you check the accuracy of the thermometers they used.In the meantime, I think it's fair to assume that they knew what they were doing and, at least, checked the ice and steam points from time to time.

It's also true that good records of temperature only exist for populated areas, but don't forget that, those are the only areas where we have a direct interest in knowing what the climate is doing.
In principle, you can detect a trend in the climate with just one thermometer in one place.
There is, of course, the fact that it the climate warms in one place, it might cool in another but that doesn't stop you being able to measure the local trend. We had no idea what the temperature was in the Antarctic until recently because nobody was there- but we didn't care for exactly the same reason.
You need global temperature measurements if you want to model the system.
But, you can detect changes with just local measurements.



It's obviously a lot easier to sort out the signal from the noise if you have many measurements.
Well, we have lots.
The large number of measurements reduces the scatter of the average of those readings.

As you say, the Beckmann thermometer and those like it only measure changes in temperature.

Fine, that's exactly what we are trying to measure.

And the current rate of change means that over the last 30 years the temperature has risen by about half a degree.
Why would you say that you need to measure to 0.01 degrees over a century to track this trend?
« Last Edit: 27/06/2013 11:46:03 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4904
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #120 on: 27/06/2013 14:22:53 »
Quote
It's also true that good records of temperature only exist for populated areas, but don't forget that, those are the only areas where we have a direct interest in knowing what the climate is doing.

Very, very wrong!

Professional scaremongers are interested in the melting of unpopulated Greenland and Arctic ice. Hurricanes begin their lives as depressions over unpopulated oceans. It's these temperatures that determine our lives!

Quote
And the current rate of change means that over the last 30 years the temperature has risen by about half a degree.

The temperature of what? The 1 sq km average over the entire Pacific and Atlantic oceans? Or just Heathrow Airport?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #121 on: 27/06/2013 16:01:31 »
AlanCalvard says
The temperature of what? The 1 sq km average over the entire Pacific and Atlantic oceans? Or just Heathrow Airport?

Hi Allan,

Thx, you had a few good comments there on the accuracy of thermometers in the past which echoes what I have been suspecting. From what you say it seems we cannot rely much on what we have from before the war, really.

As to your question: "the temp. of what?",
in statistics it is of course possible to take a random sample that is representative of a population and to make an estimate. The key is in "representative"
In my sample of 47 weather stations I balanced the sample by latitude and by 70%/30% @sea/on land. Longitude does not matter as I was looking at the average yearly data at the specific station.

in addition I looked at the average change from the average over a reported time period, which excludes the influences of differences between temp. recording devices at various places, mostly

http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/

if you go to the 2nd table, on means (the blue figures),  you will see that we warmed at an average rate of 0.013 degree C per annum globally over the past 32 years. That is ca. 0.42 degree C over the past 32 years.
This result is in fact confirmed by the satellite data, like dr. Spencer's  who reported exactly the same result.
So in this respect, BC is correct.
However, by not looking at the rest of the results, particularly the current cooling trend, many are acting like ostriches.

« Last Edit: 27/06/2013 16:34:45 by MoreCarbonOK »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4904
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #122 on: 27/06/2013 16:34:03 »
Quote
In my sample of 47 weather stations I balanced the sample by latitude and by 70%/30% @sea/on land. Longitude does not matter as I was looking at the average yearly data at the specific station.

Longitude makes an enormous difference! Moscow is pretty much the same latitude as Glasgow, but utterly different, and most of Canada that lies north of London is inhospitable or uninhabitable.

The sampling frequency is also very important. It's colder today than yesterday, but warmer than this time last week. Does this indicate a negative or a positive trend?

Nice table of data, but it's all from inhabited areas and airports, so it simply shows the obvious: concrete has less evaporative cooling than forest, and people like making heat. 

What interests me is the "single-point" curves of temperature and carbon dioxide concentration. Geologically, from the Vostok and other ice cores, and recently , from Mauna Loa observations, the CO2 curve lags behind the temperature (or its proxy) curve, not the other way around. Now I don't know what planet the professional scaremongers of IPCC live on, but around here, if A follows B, it cannot be the cause of B. Furthermore the geological temperature curve is a sawtooth, with very fast rises followed by slow declines, and this behaviour can be modelled by the superposition of sinusoids, as you would expect if temperature was driven entirely by atmospheric water content.
« Last Edit: 28/06/2013 07:30:44 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #123 on: 27/06/2013 17:02:29 »

Alan says
Longitude makes an enormous difference!
Henry says
in my thoughts about this,  I considered that earth turns once every 24 hours and that during one whole year (which are the average temps. I took),  I cancelled out the seasonal shift. Therefore longitude does not matter.
The differences you refer to, are in fact also visible in the tables. Some stations are running exactly opposite the wave.
\Believe it or not, but this has to do with the Greenhouse effect.
Namely, in a period of warming the differential between zero and [90] latitude causes more clouds at higher latitude and somewhat less at lower latitudes. In a period of cooling, such as now, the differential temp. increases, causing more clouds and rain at lower latitudes and less clouds and rain at higher latitudes.
This amplifies the cooling effect (since insolation at the equator is 2x the average)
At some stage, I expect in about 6 years from now, there is a bit of a standstill in pressure difference, causing droughts in many parts, similar to the dust bowl drought 1932-1939
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #124 on: 27/06/2013 20:34:29 »
Quote
It's also true that good records of temperature only exist for populated areas, but don't forget that, those are the only areas where we have a direct interest in knowing what the climate is doing.

Very, very wrong!

Professional scaremongers are interested in the melting of unpopulated Greenland and Arctic ice. Hurricanes begin their lives as depressions over unpopulated oceans. It's these temperatures that determine our lives!

Quote
And the current rate of change means that over the last 30 years the temperature has risen by about half a degree.

The temperature of what? The 1 sq km average over the entire Pacific and Atlantic oceans? Or just Heathrow Airport?
They may well, but what we were discussing at the time was the change in temperature in a place or fixed array of places (as it happens, one chosen by Henry)
We weren't looking at sea levels or hurricane frequencies.

The data I was talking about for the past 30 years are here
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/RFC12_Fig1.jpg
Can you explain why you need to measure that change of about half a degree to the nearest 0.01 degree?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4904
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #125 on: 28/06/2013 07:59:02 »
Quote
Namely, in a period of warming the differential between zero and [90] latitude causes more clouds at higher latitude and somewhat less at lower latitudes. In a period of cooling, such as now, the differential temp. increases, causing more clouds and rain at lower latitudes and less clouds and rain at higher latitudes.

Possibly the first time I've seen a sensible assessment of cloud effects from anyone else,  in any discussion on climate change!

The effect of water on atmospheric temperature is essentially nonlinear (self-amplifying) which can account for the rapid rise  during warming periods, and is bounded and damped by cloud formation - hence the slow downward drift from a fairly consistent maximum over previous geological cycles. Then since the balance  between carbon dioxide uptake by plants and its emission by cold-blooded animals depends on temperature, it is not surprising that the CO2 graph lags behind the temperature graph where the two are derived from independent proxies, as in ice cores.

The effect of longitude is more subtle than Henry's presumption. Temperature in the British Isles, for instance, is determined principally by the vagaries of the Gulf Stream and the jet stream. Most of the time these islands are covered in cloud and our weather is whatever the advected Atlantic depression gives us, with very little influence from the local greenhouse effect or insolation (it's quite often warmer at night than during the day). But around 30% of the time we have clear, dry  arctic skies, under which the temperature is governed by radiative transfer (hot days, cold nights) as there is very little wind to transfer heat laterally on clear days. Eastern Europe at the same latitude does not get warm, wet, Atlantic air, and the climate is principally driven by radiative transfer and local convection of water.  In short, maritime climate on the west coast of anywhere is determined by events further west, whilst continental climate is dominated by local physics.   
« Last Edit: 28/06/2013 10:58:01 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #126 on: 28/06/2013 12:45:14 »
And, for the third time now.
The data I was talking about for the past 30 years are here
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/RFC12_Fig1.jpg
Can you explain why you need to measure that change of about half a degree to the nearest 0.01 degree?


I'm asking because, if there isn't a good reason, then it looks like you are seeking to set an unnecessarily difficult target of measurement before you accept that there's any warming.


Seriously, do you really think you need a hundred years of measurements that are good to 0.01C to measure a change that seems to be occurring at about 1.5 degrees over that time?

« Last Edit: 28/06/2013 12:49:24 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #127 on: 28/06/2013 13:13:48 »
alan
it is not surprising that the CO2 graph lags behind
henry@alan
forget about CO2. It is not a factor at all. Not in warming and not in the weather.
Look again carefully at the results in my 3 tables.
1)
Note the ratio maxima-means-minima is 6:2:1
(if you take it over the longest period)
If increased CO2 or H2O were a factor, we should see minima rising, pushing up the average.
That is not happening.
2)
If you know how to do curve fitting in excel, you should try and set out the speed of warming/cooling
in K/year,  against time, on each of the 4 final results (on the bottom) for maxima, means and minima.
That gives you K/year 2
Tell me what correlation you get, especially if you try binomials?
3)
note the differences between NH and SH
Does it not seem that most of the (maxima) heat ends up in the SH oceans and is taken by weather and currents up to the NH (means)?

Once you figured out why we see these results happening, you are on your way....!!
You cannot miss it.


« Last Edit: 28/06/2013 13:23:16 by MoreCarbonOK »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4904
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #128 on: 28/06/2013 15:10:38 »
BC: Nice graph, but no title! The temperature of what? Measured how? Calculated how?

If I measure outside air temperature at my local airport over 24 hours, a 15C range is within normal bounds. The automatic system reports every 20 minutes, but if I use 4-hourly manual measurements I'm likely to miss the max (usually around 1300) and min (about 0300). If I take a true 24 hour mean, it will vary between +5 and -5 over four typical consecutive winter days, and anything less than a 2 week average (two Atlantic depressions or one winter high, say) is pretty meaningless.

The reason for asking these nitpicking questions is due to the apparent finesse of the graph. It shows about 18 - 20 ripples per quinquennium, suggesting 3-monthly means. OK, so let's look at "1992.5", halfway between 1990 and 1995. The slope suggests that midsummer was colder than the winter either side, which does not correspond with my recollection.

Or if the abscissal marks indicate mid-year, look at 1995, where once again it apparently got hotter towards the end of the year!   

There's a significant discrepancy between the pink and the red line. Which indicates the truth, and which the opinion of the author?

For what it's worth, the last calibrated meterorological thermometer I owned was scaled in 0.05 degree increments but had mid-range (10 - 30 C) corrections of as much as 0.2 degrees. You simply cannot use these instruments "out of the box" to compare temperatures at different times or places. Problem is that as far as as aviators are concerned, absolute accuracy of +/- 1 degree is of no consequence: we just want to know if we can take off with a reasonable margin of safety, or land without encountering fog or ice, so the kit is generally used without reference to the cal chart and most met reports are actually pretty crude compared with the rate of climate change.

A good rule of thumb in metrology, if not meteorology, is to use an instrument at least one order of magnitude more accurate than the effect you are trying to measure, hence my suggestion of +/- 0.01 deg as the acceptable specification for examining climate change, and for the figures to be meaningful you need to average each location over a year.

There certainly is climate change, always has been and always will be, but I object to a temporary correlation being used as an excuse to raise taxes and screw my life up by politicians jumping on a fatuous bandwaggon.
« Last Edit: 28/06/2013 16:09:01 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4904
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #129 on: 28/06/2013 16:05:20 »
MCOK: I'll believe your arithmetic. What are the answers? I don't have time to fit the curves myself!
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #130 on: 28/06/2013 18:21:16 »
Let's face it, the important thing about graphs of global temperature is that they look more like this
/ than like this\
And you don't need a thermometer which reads to 0.01C to spot a change of 0.5 do you.
It doesn't matter where it's measured or by whom as long as it's consistent so ,yes if you measure the temperature every 4 hours you will miss the max and min- but, if you are consistent, you will always miss it by the same extent. And you would have missed it just as much in 1980 as today.

As I have said a number of times you don't need brilliant measurement precision to show a trend.

"A good rule of thumb in metrology, if not meteorology, is to use an instrument at least one order of magnitude more accurate than the effect you are trying to measure, hence my suggestion of +/- 0.01 deg as the acceptable specification for examining climate change, and for the figures to be meaningful you need to average each location over a year. "
Yes, but what said was "you need to be able to measure absolute temperature to better than 0.01 degree over a range of -30 to +40 degrees, for about 100 years."

Over that time the predicted change is about 1.5 degrees so 0.1C would be good enough,  and that's still not allowing for the benefits of averaging many thermometers but you wanted 0.01 degrees.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #131 on: 28/06/2013 18:29:47 »
A good rule of thumb in metrology, if not meteorology, is to use an instrument at least one order of magnitude more accurate than the effect you are trying to measure, hence my suggestion of +/- 0.01 deg as the acceptable specification for examining climate change, and for the figures to be meaningful you need to average each location over a year.

True, and that's why day-to-day measurements of local temperature don't tell us much about climate.  What matters is the uncertainty around the measurements over time, accounting for the law of large numbers, which tells us that combining many measurements actually decreases the uncertainty in the mean relative to the uncertainty in any individual measurement.  If many independent measurements are taken at roughly the same time, then the uncertainty decreased by a factor of ~ the square root of the number of measurements taken. 

I'd go so far as to say that any claims about climate change without an analysis of uncertainties are suspect, because you don't know if they show a trend or just measurement error.  Fortunately, most scientific publications which track temperatures do have error bars, e.g. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/  The important part is not that the trendline increase, but that it increases so much relative to measurement uncertainty that we can be nearly certain that the rise is real, and not due to uncertainties in the measurement.

Edit: BC beat me to most of this, but the TL;DR version is that uncertainties can be reduced by averaging and a proper analysis shows global temps increasing.
« Last Edit: 28/06/2013 18:41:28 by JP »

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #132 on: 28/06/2013 19:35:03 »
henry@alan
r2> 0.95
in the case of maxima,
r2=0.996

ergo:
must be natural, such a trend cannot be man made.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4904
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #133 on: 28/06/2013 19:57:51 »
Quote
Let's face it, the important thing about graphs of global temperature.....It doesn't matter where it's measured or by whom

It makes an enormous difference! Just staying with airfields for a moment, in the period of your graph Stansted grew from a small strip of tarmac surrounded by grass and a few huts, to a hundred acres of concrete surrounded by steel hangars, whilst the runway at Wrexham was broken up and removed. Every two minutes, someone dissipates several megajoules of exhaust heat or kinetic energy on the Stansted runway, but you can't land at Wrexham any more. So the local temperature at Stansted went / and that at Wrexham went \  Of course nobody measures the temperature at Wrexham now the runway has been sold as hardcore, so the apparent mean of all British airfields is // !

Pretty obviously, most of our weather data comes from populated areas because that's where the present and forecast conditions are most immediately important, but nearly all of our climate depends on conditions in unpopulated areas like the middle of the Pacific, Arctic, Gobi, northern Canada... which account for 95% of the earth's surface.The problem is that the 5% on which we live is increasingly concreted over and heated by our activities as well as the sun, so the data is both overrepresented and unrepresentative.

So the questions remain: what data is represented by your graph, and why does it show that some winters are warmer than the adjacent summers?
« Last Edit: 28/06/2013 20:02:06 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #134 on: 29/06/2013 11:34:29 »
Not sure why you are so hung up on airfields since we have data like this
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
 but...
How fortunate then that, as I have said repeatedly, the average (which would include Stansted and Wrexham) would give a better result than either of them.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #135 on: 29/06/2013 15:26:31 »
 JP says
Fortunately, most scientific publications which track temperatures do have error bars, e.g. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/  The important part is not that the trendline increase, but that it increases so much relative to measurement uncertainty that we can be nearly certain that the rise is real, and not due to uncertainties in the measurement.

Henry says
sorry JP, but I do not see any error bars in that graph that you quoted?

In fact, subsequent to satisfying my curiosity about error, I did a comparison of same gistemp data set with the wood for trees temperature index, which is an average of anamolies of all available data sets,
here is the result of my analysis
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/plot/gistemp/from:1930/to:2014/plot/gistemp/from:1930/to:1980/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:2002/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/wti/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/wti/from:1980/to:2002/trend

It appears that gis temp. anomalies  are considerably higher than that of other data sets,

which points to a considerable,  apparently consistent, error in the gis temp. data set.



*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #136 on: 29/06/2013 20:29:07 »
Interesting set of graphs.
It illustrates my point nicely.
Even though there's a lot a scatter and different biasses on the two data sets, they both show the same trend.
The data on the right hand side are higher than those on the left- i.e. they show that the world is warming (with some scatter).

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #137 on: 29/06/2013 21:02:41 »
bored chemist says
the two data sets, they both show the same trend.

henry says
true
both show that temps have been gradually going up from 1930 -2000
but going down from 2002
exactly as predicted by me here
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures
(note there is a lag between energy-in /maxima and energy-out /means)

consequently, seeing that I was right, correctly predicting history, 
unfortunately we will continue cooling down until around 2040

clearly

we cannot trust the data before 1930 as we do not have a global baseline before that time,
because of inaccuracy and different methods of recording means

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4904
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #138 on: 29/06/2013 21:17:50 »
Not sure why you are so hung up on airfields since we have data like this
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
 but...
How fortunate then that, as I have said repeatedly, the average (which would include Stansted and Wrexham) would give a better result than either of them.


I'm not "hung up" on airfields, it just happens that nearly all the credible historic data comes from them.

Not sure what you mean by a "better" result. If the average temperature over the entire UK had decreased during the period when Stansted airport was expanding, in what respect would today's Stansted temperature (there is no mean because Wrexham no longer has a runway so it no longer reports temperature) be "better"?

The GISS "data" is fascinating. It goes back to 1880, when one continent (Antarctica) was completely unexplored, another (Australia)  had no established meteorological service, and there were no regular reports from anywhere in the Pacific. So how did they deduce a global mean? I smell bullshit!

So I repeat my question: you showed a graph earlier (reply 126). Where did the data come from and what do the curves represent? Simple enough, surely, to deserve an answer?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #139 on: 29/06/2013 21:38:35 »
"Where did the data come from"
Here
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
you can tell from the web address.
But take your pick. There are plenty of web pages out there with data and they seem to show a pretty much consistent rise over the last 30 years or so.
Here's another (chosen pretty much at random from heaps on google).
http://metaclimate.org/2010/02/14/a-ghcn-analysis/

Perhaps you can find the ones where an estimate of the global temperature over that period (rather than cherry picking since the last el nino) actually falls.
Its fair to say that if you look at the results from a google search for images of climate change graphs
there are a lot more like  this / than like this\ and it's hard to see how they could all be wrong.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4904
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #140 on: 30/06/2013 00:19:50 »
It's quite clear where the "skeptical" graph came from, but I'm interested to know what its authors actually plotted. Data that suggests that some winters are warmer than their adjacent summers deserves serious investigation.

The "metaclimate" graph does at least state a geographical area. Amazingly, it includes data from the North Pole in 1880, at least 30 years before anyone actually got there, and probably 90 years before anyone measured temperatures above 80 deg latitude for an entire year.

Skeptic? Moi? No, just wondering how much "climate data" has been falsified, and why it was done in such a transparently amateurish manner..
« Last Edit: 30/06/2013 00:24:41 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #141 on: 30/06/2013 09:18:34 »
"Amazingly, it includes data from the North Pole in 1880"
No, it doesn't and, of course, nor does it pretend to.
Here's the graph's title
"Here’s one of his graphs, covering 70 – 90 deg north latitude"

And here's where that data is explicitly stated to be from
"stations north of 70N latitude — instead of defining separate grid boxes for stations north of 80N latitude, I’ll lump them together with the stations north of 70N latitude."
So the graph is the combination of all the data North of 70 degrees.
That data may be a bit sparse, but that's not the same as saying it's impossible.
Such a comment might be thought of has having " been falsified" in "transparently amateurish manner"

No, I don't think you are a sceptic. A sceptic would look at the data to see what it says, rather than launching a strawman attack on what it doesn't say.

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4904
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #142 on: 30/06/2013 22:47:14 »
The underlying problem is that the world is not a smooth, stationary, homogeneous surface. The air above it moves to transport heat, and clouds form and disperse in different ways at different points. This makes it impossible to generate a sufficient sample from which to extract a meaningful mean, if substantial areas are not mapped - you have to survey the entire surface with a constant finesse, and ensure that your data points are not in any way "special" or time variant. Hence historic temperature observations, which in the main are necessarily "special" and time variant, are not useful in a discussion of trends in global heat exchange or climate.

Fortunately we do have recent satellite data, which can give us good random samples of constant finesse over the entire surface . On the downside there have been significant recalibrations of that data (who ever said physics was easy?) but generally we can accept that satellite data from say 1990 onwards is consistent and representative.

I approve of your definition of a sceptic. So I looked at the "skeptical science" graph and it clearly says that some winters were warmer than the adjacent summers, so once again I ask what is the source data for this interesting graph? It's the counterintuitive that makes life interesting.   
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #143 on: 01/07/2013 06:44:29 »
Since Summer and Winter are local events, it's easy to see how they might get messed up if you took a global average: do you mean Australia's Summer or England's?
Also, if I wan't to know if the temperature in, for example, London, is changing over time, I clearly don't need to measure the temperature in Antarctica.
All I need are a series of measurements in London.
If those are going up then London is warming.
There are plenty of such measurements going back into history and, if we don't assume that those doing the measuring were incompetent, then we can track the local temperature changes for many places.
In fact, they are generally rising..
As I have said, if you put a forth blaknet on the bed and you get warmer, it's hard to rule out cause and effect.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4904
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #144 on: 01/07/2013 10:22:21 »
I have no idea what the "skeptical science" graph represented - it was your suggestion, and you still haven't told us! However if it represents a true global average, you wouldn't expect to see any seasonal cycles, and if it represents one or other hemisphere, or even one point on the globe, you'd expect the cycles to be consistent. But it showed significant, inconsistent cycles, which makes it very interesting.

The temperature in London is indeed changing with time, because the surface albedo, the concentration of human activity, and the nature of that activity, are all tending to increase the outdoor temperature. But the question we are trying to answer is about the global effect of increasing CO2, not the local effect of urban heat islands, which even the most ardent warmists agree are anomalous. Interestingly, I think the highest local concentration of CO2 in London was probably in the 1940's and 50's when everything was coal fired - and it was a lot colder than recently!

The "fourth blanket" is an interesting analogy. As you add more blankets, so the incremental effect of each becomes smaller. It's called "close" in clothing design, and "saturation" in infrared spectroscopy. If you add a sheet of paper to a continuously changing heap of blankets, you'd be hard put to pin down its causality from observation. And if,  as in the geo-historic CO2 case, the additional blanket always arrived after the temperature had risen and departed after the temperature had fallen, you might question which was the cause and which the effect.

Causality demands correlation, consistent sequencing, and the elimination of co-causation. Until you have demonstrated all three, you can't use a presumption of causality to predict anything qualitatively. And if you want to make a quantitative prediction, you need a good handle on the effects of nonlinearity and saturation. Unfortunately, all the evidence I have seen to date points strongly to temperature being the cause of CO2, not the other way around, so it's difficult to answer the original question.
« Last Edit: 01/07/2013 12:17:52 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #145 on: 01/07/2013 15:03:18 »
This reminds me of an interesting book I just picked up: The Norm Chronicles by Michael Blastland.  It's about our perceptions of risks vs. the actual statistics.  There's a nice section on climate science which points out that it's virtually impossible to convince die-hards on either side, and this thread backs that up.  His argument is (and he cites a bunch of psychological studies to back this up) that people generally choose a side due to their politics, and since climate science can't be 100% proven either way, they entrench their opinion with whatever ideas they understand, be those scientific or not.  It's interesting that on a science site like this, any post on climate change brings out a lot of people arguing against the scientific consensus, and that virtually all of their arguments don't use anything approaching a scientific methodology.  This strongly argues for better scientific literacy among the voting public (at least among those of us who think policy decisions should be based on sound science.)

Most of the arguments here against climate change are "not even wrong" as Wolfgang Pauli famously put it.  Sure, many are technically true, but they don't have much to do with the scientific method and aren't useful in evaluating climate science one way or the other.  As I've pointed out in a prior thread (and no one bothered to address), the scientific method of climate change involves two major steps:
1) Collecting and analyzing data on climate (primarily temperature).  This means collecting data from modern satellites, historical temperature readings with thermometers, ice cores and so on.  Some of these data sources are more accurate than others, which is where analysis comes in.  We've had a few centuries to perfect our methods of statistical analysis, and so scientists can estimate both mean temperatures (over regions or the whole globe) as well as the uncertainties of those mean estimates.  Arguments against temperature records in this thread ignore those uncertainties.  Sure, the plot of means might or might not be true, but it's important to look at the ranges within which we are 95%, 99%, 99.99999%, etc. that the true mean temperatures lie.  In the end, it's how confident we are of the trend that matters.

2) The second step is coming up with a model that explains and predicts the data.  It's easy to come up with a best fit curve through some section of data and claim that temperature is falling.  It's also just as easy to pick some section of data which shows a massive upward trend and predict we'll all bake to death in a few decades.  What's important is to come up with a model (not just a best fit curve) that makes predictions based on some underlying science (such as the physics/chemistry of CO2), which matches the data.  What do we mean by matching the data?  Again, you have to take a scientific perspective which has been woefully lacking in this thread.  You can compute what are called confidence intervals which tell you that if this model is correct, the data will lie in this range with X% certainty.  Based on that, you can't tell if a model is correct, but you can tell if it's consistent with the data.  You can even say how certain you are that the model is wrong--so if enough data falls outside of the 95% confidence interval, for example, you can throw out the model.

Since this is a science forum, we should be evaluating criteria on these bases, not on the basis of nitpicking details and ignoring the extensive body of literature analyzing both data and models.  Nitpicking details while accounting for 1) and 2) is very useful however, so I look forward to seeing Alan and Henry post some details about how their points correlate with the confidence intervals on the models or uncertainties in measured data. 

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4904
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #146 on: 01/07/2013 15:48:33 »
Nothing to do with me, JP, but when someone publishes an untitled graph which contains counterintuitive data, I'd like to know what it represents and why it behaves that way. Is that nitpicking or just asking the sort of question that we professional scientists are paid to ask?

Politics? I'm a dyed-in-the-wool atheist leftie tree-hugger. But that derives from studying the data, not the other way around.

A model based on the nonlinear greenhouse effect of water goes a long way to explaining the Vostok ice core data over periods of thousands of years, and recent Mauna Loa data clearly shows the consistent lag of CO2 behind temperature, but the inherently chaotic nature of the planetary atmosphere makes short-term prediction a very risky business.

My preference is always for clean, raw data. Hence Mauna Loa, which represents a "good site" with no obvious CO2 anomalies or heat island effects, and Vostok, which has used the same data collection process for millions of years, are more likely to yield understanding of the process of climate change than any attempt at meta-analysis of incoherent data and proxies.

History has shown that we should be wary of "scientific consensus". Phlogiston, the geocentric universe, the aether, the flat earth, aristotelian gravitation....all held sway as consensus at some time. Early on in our careers, we learn that data is more important. To paraphrase Einstein, when confronted by a debunking consensus paper signed by 100 Nazi professors: "If I had been wrong, one student would have been sufficient." So let's look at the data, please. 

Regarding uncertainties and sampling intervals, here are some samples of a set, each with negligible uncertainty

1, 16, 23, 45, 48, 49, 51, 60, 74, -5, -7, -23, -60, -80 

What is the mean? Well it's about 13.7. But these numbers are "samples" of latitude, reported with something approaching the frequency of, say, air temperature reports. Most meteorologists live in the northern bit of the planet, hence the preponderance of numbers around 40 to 50,  and we have a few reliable reporters from the polar regions. But the mean of these samples tells us nothing about the mean latitude of the planet, which is of course 0.  Same problem with terrestrial-based temperature records: however precise they may be, they only tell us about the temperature in places where people live, and even if we correct for heat island effects, the mean is globally meaningless. You can only determine global trends by evenly sampling 100% of the surface (which was not possible before the 1970s) or smoothing the curve of an unequivocal proxy at one fixed point.   
« Last Edit: 01/07/2013 18:32:44 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #147 on: 01/07/2013 17:25:42 »
JP says
that people generally choose a side due to their politics,
Henry says
well...in my case it is actually religion, which demands that I speak the truth at all times,
I determined no influence of the CO2
it is rather natural forces, that show decline in temps. from 2002
as proven to you from all available data sets
and that this decline in temps. will continue
as shown to you from my own data set (with data from 1974-2012)

but I am intrigued to know as to why you did not respond to my question to you raised in my earlier post, specifically addressed to you?
(which seems to confirm some kind of bias from you which I have noted before)

rgrds
H

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #148 on: 01/07/2013 18:16:41 »
but I am intrigued to know as to why you did not respond to my question to you raised in my earlier post, specifically addressed to you?
(which seems to confirm some kind of bias from you which I have noted before)

I'd be surprised if you hadn't noted my bias.  In fact, I flat out told you before that I was done debating you on the topic since you use your posts to promote your own model based on cherry-picked data and a best fit curve.  This is a science forum, so I'm biased towards having science-based discussions.   I also don't like repeating myself like a broken record.  Either you don't understand the scientific method, or you're deliberately trolling us.  In either case, since you've made over 100 posts now without making an effort to make your ideas scientific, I don't see why engaging you would be helpful to either of us or to the forum.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #149 on: 01/07/2013 18:33:13 »
jp says
...to promote your own model based on cherry-picked data and a best fit curve.
henry says
I told you from the beginning that my sample of 47 stations was random,
except for the fact of the choice of stations with complete or nearly complete records...
even choosing more stations won't change the result
if you get a correlation coefficient of 0.997 on the binomial for the drop of maximum temps.....
Either way, even if you believe I am trolling, the question to you was about the error bars,
on the gistemp data set,
which you state were there
but they were not...