Red herring. The same measurements are replicated elsewhere, continuously
Posted on 10/09/2019 3:22:11 AM PDT by Moseley
We actually do not know how much carbon dioxide was in Earth’s atmosphere prior to the 1930s. Devices to reliably measure carbon dioxide in the air went through painstaking, slow, bumpy development. Instruments did not really come into their own until around 1930.
Because we don’t know the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, climate change proponents depend upon unreliable “proxies.” They substitute gas pockets retrieved from ice core samples from deep within ancient glaciers. They hope this will tell us Earth’s ancient atmosphere and the concentration of CO2 in the air.
Speculation that air pockets remain exactly the same over hundreds to millions of years has never been tested. And what is the margin of error of an ice core sample?
Arguing that A causes B requires measurements with a known margin of error. We can’t model a phenomenon in inches if the data was measured in miles. Proxy measurements from ice core air samples cannot prove global warming caused by carbon dioxide. The margins of error are too wide and highly unpredictable.
In 2004 the U.S. Senate was fully briefed on the falsehood of man-made global warming. The U.S. Government clearly knows that we cannot measure carbon dioxide earlier than 1900 to 1930.
Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski testified before the U.S. Senate on March 13, 2004:
(Excerpt) Read more at bigleaguepolitics.com ...
The only way the current CO2 increase by 25 or 30 ppm per decade can be from past warming is if that past warming (500 to 1000 years ago) was 0.3C per decade and that deep ocean warming is causing the release of CO2 now. In other words the only way that the rise from 280 to 410 can be from past warming is if the past warming was 13C (or probably much more) in the last 500 to 1000 years.
That did not happen. Therefore the whole current rise is not from past warming. But a small amount of the current rise is very likely from past warming. Natural warming after the Little Ice Age was at least 1C, maybe 2C. So 10-20 ppm of the total rise (of 130 ppm and counting) can be attributed to past warming.
Leaves do decompose but the result is not 100% CO2 for sure as anyone who has a compost pile knows. Most of the weight a tree puts on in a year is also CO2 conversion into various cellulosic hydrocarbons. Burn the wood or the leaves and you get CO2. Otherwise you get CO2 bound up for a long time. After all this where the oil and gas comes from is it not?
True microbes can produce methane and other gases along with CO2. It’s also true that the weight of the wood is mostly carbon storage and might exceed the weight of the leaves in some cases. Also some of the weight loss is water loss. But there is a notable drop in CO2 from mid-May to early Oct corresponding with nothern hemisphere vegitation growth, then a rise.
“The only way the current CO2 increase by 25 or 30 ppm per decade can be from past warming “
Perhaps it has absolutely nothing to do with warming whatsoever.
In order to run a statistical model, such as facilitated by SAS software, you have to have data points of all variables to sufficient precision to result in a statistically significant and meaningful relationship.
Since we don’t know CO2 content of the air before 1930 and we don’t know precise temperature records before around 1850,
you cannot create a statistically significant relationship between CO2 and temperature.
Perhaps there is absolutely no relationship whatsoever between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.
“There are other proxies they don’t mention showing thousands of years of lower CO2.”
And how have those proxies been VALIDATED?
To know if the proxies accurately measure past conditions, you would have to climb in to a time machine, go back in time, measure the actual air in the past, then come back in your time machine to the present, and then re-measure the proxy.
On what basis would anyone speculate that a proxy is an accurate measure of CO2 content in the atmosphere.
“Those are inexact just like the ice cores.”
That would lead to the conclusion that they are worthless.
“Another flaw in their argument is that chrmical analysis has been used since 1812”
That is incorrect. Attempts to measure CO2 content in the air were notoriously unreliable, difficult, and unsuccessful.
CO2 was not even known until around 1750.
All measurements prior to 1930 are worthless.
Yes, that is possible. There are a large number of unknowns like aerosols that they guess and put into the models. There are parameters for convection that essentially fitted and not derived. So models are a GIGO exercise and I care not one whit about them.
What I do have confidence in is the relationship from fossil burning (from pretty well known economic data) to CO2 rise in the atmosphere. There's a lower rise in the atmosphere than the fossil burning output, but that's accounted for by the oceans drawing down all CO2 (natural, old manmade, new manmade) and dropping in pH as a result. There is also weathering drawing down atmospheric CO2. That's all pretty well understood and has very little to do with temperature.
All I am saying is the rise in CO2 needs an explanation and I have provided that. I am not positing a rise in temperature nor a cause for that alleged rise.
“Also the rise from 1930 must be explained.?
WHY?
The proponent of a hypothesis must prove it.
The hypothesis that human industrial activity producing CO2 affects the temperature of the planet must be proven.
You deny science when you say that others must disprove the hypothesis.
That’s not science.
Science requires that you prove the hypothesis.
“Can’t simply say because prior knowledge is imperfect the current rise could be natural.”
Yes, we can say that.
But what you are missing is that there is no relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature of the Earth.
It does not matter if the observed change in atmospheric CO2 — which is probably measurement error due to local conditions like on the Hawaiian volcano — is natural or not.
Who cares if CO2 content in the air is natural or man-made?
CO2 does not change the planet’s temperature.
“It requires a explanation.”
Your hypothesis requires an explanation as well as proof. You are turning science on its head. The hypothesis must be proven true.
“There’s a well-supported manmade explanation, and no natural explanation that I have read about.”
There is no explanation. It has never been tested by science.
Plants eat CO2. The extremely tiny amount of CO2 transformed by humans from where nature stored it into the free air would stimulate plant growth, and CO2 would immediately return to equilibrium.
Human industrial activity cannot explain CO2 in the atmosphere because plants are eagerly and busily consuming that same CO2 as fast as they can.
You grow the same plants in a chamber with controlled CO2 and measure the stomata numbers and sizes.
That is not correct. Here's 0.04% from around 1919: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1405551/pdf/jphysiol01752-0035.pdf That's of course higher than the alleged global average then which was 0.03% But there are diurnal and geographic fluctuations. You have to take a lot of readings to get a valid average.
Red herring. The same measurements are replicated elsewhere, continuously
because plants are eagerly and busily consuming that same CO2 as fast as they can.
And that is correct! See graph in my previous comment. They eat the most CO2 in the short but very sunny Arctic summer. Note the sharp drop in CO2 in Barrow. They eat the least in the southern hemisphere which has much more ocean than land, and the least at the south pole which is completely covered in ice unlike Barrow where all the ice melts.
So your hypthothesis explains the annual wiggle in the chart, and my hypothesis explains the year-to-year rise. I can give evidence of correctness from math, economic value of burned fossil times amount of CO2 per dollar.
You are welcome to propose a hypothesis for the year-to-year rise in CO2. I have proposed many, not just fossil. I have proposed volcanic activity, ocean biosphere changes and terrestrial biosphere (e.g. burning the rainforests) There is some evidence for each but no evidence to explain the entire, steady year-to-year rise.
To use ice core samples as a measurement for Earth’s ancient atmosphere, we would have to to measure a known sample within ice layers, wait a million years, and then come back a million years later and re-test the air pocket. It is unlikely that the gas sample will remained unchanged. That would be the kind of real science that the protesting students could have learned had they stayed in school.
The way they gather the deep ancient glacial ice CHANGES IT so they actually don’t know squat about the CO2 in the ancient atmosphere.
The technology to measure CO2 in the atmosphere was not reliable until 1930. There are no meaningful measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere prior to 1930.
“You grow the same plants in a chamber with controlled CO2 and measure the stomata numbers and sizes.”
And then you come back 100,000 years later to compare those proxies with known accurate measurements.
The use of proxies has never been validated, because it cannot be validated.
The speculation is that we can know the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere 1,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago, or 1 million years ago by using proxies.
The only way that the use of proxies can be validated is to take a measurement, come back the relevant number of years, like 100,000 years, and compare the proxy to a known value.
“And that is correct! See graph in my previous comment. They eat the most CO2 in the short but very sunny Arctic summer.”
You are mistaken by looking to the Arctic. That’s where people are gathering ice core samples from.
But the hypothesis is that humans are taking the fossil fuels that planet Earth in its wisdom decided to create and burning them, releasing stored CO2 into the air.
That’s not happening mainly at the Arctic.
There are trees, bushes, grass, etc. near the sources of human industrial activity.
The tree, bush and grass growth is happening and using up CO2. Your hypothesis is correct. In winter the growth stops. Your hypothesis has even more evidence for it. Now we need an explanation for the year-over-year growth in CO2.
But the hypothesis is that humans are taking the fossil fuels that planet Earth in its wisdom decided to create and burning them, releasing stored CO2 into the air.
That’s not happening mainly at the Arctic.
That's true. Most fossil fuel burning is in mid latitudes south of the Arctic. But the CO2 producing bacteria and animals dominate the Arctic fall producing high levels of CO2 lasting through the winter. Plenty of people point out that natural CO2 production is 30 times higher than manmade production. I always repond by saying natural uptake is also 30 times higher than manmade production and manmade uptake is negligible. But the Arctic that's even more true. Lots more natural production and uptake than manmade production and a bigger seasonal swing.
*** “I need to buy a used four wheel drive truck” ***
I have a 2003 Dodge 2500, 4x4 Cummins (not for sale) ... Radio doesn’t work, Defrost/Heater/AC doesn’t work, Seats are crap, Dash is crap
But it is an absolute BEAST, almost 300,000 and it still gets about 23 MPG and has pulled anything I have ever attached to it.
If you can get one like this before the High-school kids do, it will be a useful tool for many years.
Wish you well
(just replaced all U-Joints on this one so I figure another 100,000)
“Now we need an explanation for the year-over-year growth in CO2.”
What if CO2 is completely irrelevant?
If CO2 has no effect whatsoever on the planet, why do we care?
All of the CO2 being emitted was originally in the atmosphere and was converted by photosynthesis into plant material.
There is no evidence that CO2 has any effect on the climate or on anything else.
Someone, I believe you, mentioned CONVECTION.
Convection carries heat from the Earth’s surface up toward space, where heat is dissipated out into space and away from the Earth.
Since there have never been any experiments of what happens in the global atmosphere — and there cannot be realistically — why should we imagine that CO2 has any effect on the climate?
Convection transports heat to outer space. Heat the surface of the Earth, and convection becomes more rapid and even violent. But it just transports heat to outer space faster.
All of the CO2 being emitted was originally in the atmosphere and was converted by photosynthesis into plant material.
True. That CO2 came from microbes, dinosaurs, ancient volcanoes, etc and was turned into plants and then into coal and oil. All of the CO2 currently being emitted from burning coal and oil was originally in the atmosphere, but not all at once. We don't have to worry about our modest amounts of CO2 IMO. We have plenty of time to switch to other cleaner sources. That is 100% inevitable with technological progress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.