Copenhagen Climate Change Conference = The League of Nations

[fish]

Psyber I am gobsmacked that in another thread you dismiss the work of thousands of scientists over several decades that has unequivocally concluded that climate change is forced by human activity, but you have no hesitation in providing a link to the work of a single skeptic who died in 2006!

Back then I was advocating reading and thinking for oneself rather that just picking a convenient band wagon.

I posted this one because there or somewhere else on this forum I recalled someone claiming no one who wasn't a declared climate scientist could challenge the conventional wisdom, so I was pleased to have found one who couldn't be totally dismissed on those fallacious grounds. I feel silly now that I hadn't considered the obvious validity of dismissing his opinion on the grounds that he had since died!
So I shall note that the rules state no-one who isn't an approved climate scientist and isn't alive can be considered.

As you still stick rigidly to the same dogma, I see you still haven't read the links I supplied you with or done any other reading that may force you to think.
I met an SA politician the other day who said today's CO2 levels are the highest ever so I emailed him the links and charts.
The Vostok Ice Cores indicate our highest ever CO2 levels were reached about 325,000 years ago in the mid- Pleistocene.

Psyber I have been reading and thinking about this topic for over 20 years - I have hardly "picked up a convenient bandwagon". I just happen to agree with the findings of the worlds scientists.

I still maintain that you are biased in dismissing, without any proof, the work of the many scientists who have concluded that human activity is forcing the current warming of the planet, then putting forward as bona-fide the work of a single scientist that happens to disagree with them.

As for the CO2 levels during the Pleistocene, I agree that in the past (and in the present) various natural processes have caused falls and rises in CO2 levels with associated falls and rises in temperature. However that does not mean that human activity cannot also influence CO2 levels and temperature. In regard to the current warming the scientists have factored in the natural processes and have concluded that almost all of the observed warming is caused by the recent (industrial era) increase in greenhouse gas levels from human activities.

[Psyber]

As for the CO2 levels during the Pleistocene, I agree that in the past (and in the present) various natural processes have caused falls and rises in CO2 levels with associated falls and rises in temperature. However that does not mean that human activity cannot also influence CO2 levels and temperature. In regard to the current warming the scientists have factored in the natural processes and have concluded that almost all of the observed warming is caused by the recent (industrial era) increase in greenhouse gas levels from human activities.

I don't agree with the highlighted bit.
I am not convinced human activity is yet the cause of "almost all" as we have not yet exceeded the levels of past cycles, and the present changes are due now in the cycle's pattern.
When the current changes exceed those predictable from the records I will review my position about the human contribution.

However, I do support the idea that we should clean up our pollution now before we do make it worse.
I just want us to tackle it all, not just one component.

There are two things that worry me about the currently fashionable line:

1. Placing too much emphasis on carbon allows us to ignore other polluting activities that may be currently more dangerous to health.
It is easy for governments with their tendency to short-term thinking to decide they have fixed it all with the carbon tax, and, having done "something", do nothing about the other chemicals damaging our environment and our health.

2. We may also then ignore the human over-population issue, which will increase our general pollution output. A Carbon Tax will not solve that that.

I was pleased to note last night on TV that David Suzuki is not focussed just on carbon as the issue.
I think we are looking at the issue too narrowly, and as a result looking at doing too little.
The excessive focus on Carbon from human activity makes that easy.
Governments can grasp the easy component that they can "tackle" in token form by just introducing a new tax, and ignore the hard bit that will be less popular.

[fish]

The Vostok Ice Cores indicate our highest ever CO2 levels were reached about 325,000 years ago in the mid- Pleistocene.

Psyber I've had a look at the Vostok ice core CO2 levels and it looks like the maximum level reached about 325,000 years ago was 298.7 parts per million (ppm). I used the data that I found here (Petit et al 1999), which matches the data shown graphically in the Wikipedia page that you provided a link for.

The current level of atmospheric CO2 is around 390ppm (compared to about 280ppm in pre-industrial times), which far exceeds the Vostok records. Am I missing something here?

I also had a look at the rate of change of CO2 levels in the Vostok ice core data, and found that the maximum increase between any two readings was 0.06ppm per year. The current rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 is around 1.9ppm per year - over thirty times higher than the maximum historical rate of change according to the Vostok records.

So, we have record-high emissions of C02 by human activity, record-high rates of increase of atmospheric CO2 levels and record-high CO2 levels in the atmosphere! CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. Surely this is cause for concern?

[Psyber]

Fish, thanks for that link to the Vostok files - I hadn't found that and was reading off the graphs only which has limitations.
They appear to show a lower current level than those of 325,000 years ago.
However, I can see they may not be up to date as your link suggests the latest data in this series may have been from 2342 years ago.

Can you provide a link to similar raw scientific data for the current levels you quote?
If you can, I''d be prepared to read the data and re-assess my position.
Whether the human contribution is currently significant would depend on that raw data and whether any difference found was statistically significant.
I do have a friend who is a Geostatistician I can run it past.

[fish]

I've had a quick look and found this dataset for atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in Antarctica - where the Vostok ice core samples were taken. Click on "digital data" for the monthly readings. The record is from 1957 to 2007 and the final column, which shows the average for the year, indicates that the CO2 level in 2007 was 380.42 and was increasing by around 2ppm per year.

[fish]

Fish, thanks for that link to the Vostok files - I hadn't found that and was reading off the graphs only which has limitations.
They appear to show a lower current level than those of 325,000 years ago.
However, I can see they may not be up to date as your link suggests the latest data in this series may have been from 2342 years ago.

As I undersatand it, ice cores can only ever provide "historical" data on atmospheric gases, as it takes thousands of years for the ice layers to be laid and also for the gas bubbles to be trapped inside the ice...

[Psyber]

Fish, thanks for that link to the Vostok files - I hadn't found that and was reading off the graphs only which has limitations.
They appear to show a lower current level than those of 325,000 years ago.
However, I can see they may not be up to date as your link suggests the latest data in this series may have been from 2342 years ago.

As I understand it, ice cores can only ever provide "historical" data on atmospheric gases, as it takes thousands of years for the ice layers to be laid and also for the gas bubbles to be trapped inside the ice...

Does anyone know whether in theory "Flask Air" gives comparable or higher readings than bubbles in Ice Cores?
I'd like to be sure we are comparing apples with apples.
The delay in forming the ice layers means there can be no comparative analysis and no certain answer to that question, I assume, unless there is some other way of tackling it..
I've emailed the figures for my Statistician friend.

[Gozu]

I've emailed the figures for my Statistician friend.

http://clubtroppo.com.au/2011/02/20/mea ... net-earth/

[Psyber]

I've emailed the figures for my Statistician friend.

http://clubtroppo.com.au/2011/02/20/mea ... net-earth/

My stats man is generally "left" of me, and if he has a bias it is towards the green faith. He is definitely not a Monckton and nor am I.
[ I am taking Fish's figures seriously and checking their implications carefully. I am prepared to review my position after doing so.]

Monckton does seem to elaborate his ideas from some real points of questioning in an extreme and bizarre way.

[fish]

Does anyone know whether in theory "Flask Air" gives comparable or higher readings than bubbles in Ice Cores?
I'd like to be sure we are comparing apples with apples. The delay in forming the ice layers means there can be no comparative analysis and no certain answer to that question, I assume, unless there is some other way of tackling it...

There is a statement in the Description of the Vostok data (Petit et al 1999) that says the accuracy of the CO2 reading is +/- 2-3ppm.

I can't find any references as to the accuracy of the nondispersive infrared gas analyzer used to determine the flask data. However the description of the flask data method says that the CO2 readings of replicate samples must be within +/- 0.4ppm of eachother.

[Psyber]

Does anyone know whether in theory "Flask Air" gives comparable or higher readings than bubbles in Ice Cores?
I'd like to be sure we are comparing apples with apples. The delay in forming the ice layers means there can be no comparative analysis and no certain answer to that question, I assume, unless there is some other way of tackling it...

There is a statement in the Description of the Vostok data (Petit et al 1999) that says the accuracy of the CO2 reading is +/- 2-3ppm.
I can't find any references as to the accuracy of the nondispersive infrared gas analyzer used to determine the flask data. However the description of the flask data method says that the CO2 readings of replicate samples must be within +/- 0.4ppm of each other.

Yes I follow that..
What I am wondering about is the validity of comparing ice core bubble reading with flask air readings.

Because CO2 tends to be taken up well by water, especially at low temperatures, I was wondering whether during the formation of the ice layers some of the CO2 got absorbed into the water so that the CO2 levels in the bubbles were thus lowered.
This could, in theory, occur as water froze or while it was liquid are low temperature under pressure.
I don't know then whether some would be bound as bicarbonates or carbonates with traces of sodium etc., or whether as freezing occurred the CO2 would be released again.
My Physics and Chemistry knowledge is a little rusty, but I recall enough to know the questions are there.

Flask air at Vostok would be dry air due to the the moisture settling out as frost and snow, so there would be no such absorption.
I'm trying to work out how closely ice core bubble levels and flask air levels can be compared.

[fish]

Interesting Psyber that when you thought the Vostok ice core results suited your position (that CO2 levels were higher in the Pleistocene) you blindly accepted them without question and even forwarded the data to an SA politician.

However now that you see that they show todays CO2 levels are far greater than in the Pleistocene you try to pick them to pieces and discredit them as wrong.

This could be a case study for Climate Change Denial 1.01...

[Psyber]

Interesting Psyber that when you thought the Vostok ice core results suited your position (that CO2 levels were higher in the Pleistocene) you blindly accepted them without question and even forwarded the data to an SA politician.
However now that you see that they show todays CO2 levels are far greater than in the Pleistocene you try to pick them to pieces and discredit them as wrong.
This could be a case study for Climate Change Denial 1.01...

You seem to have missed the fact that since you supplied those figures I have suspended comment about the question of anthropogenic factors contributing to global warming.

What I am trying to do now is check whether the two methods of sampling are directly comparable - apples and apples.
Before I only had Ice Core sample figures, not Ice Core and free air samples, which is what "flask air" is.
I am now in the process of trying to apply scientific method rather than accept or reject the comparison on the basis of some form of dogma.
These issues have to be considered if one is to compare in a valid way data from the two different sampling sources/methods.
This is Basic Scientific Method 1.01.

The questions that remain to be resolved are:
Does sampling CO2 levels from dry air in a flask, and those from air that has been encased in water in whatever form for a few thousand years, give directly comparable results?
Does the fact that CO2 is very soluble in water and can be bound as HCO3- or CO3- -, make an adjustment factor necessary, and if so how big an adjustment?

When I can find an answer to those I'll review my position on the anthropogenic contribution - as I have already said here.

Your contributions to answering those questions scientifically would be welcome.
Rants about what I have said in the past, or my not accepting the comparison blindly and immediately, are not.

[ PS: I have forwarded the data you provided me with to the same politician with the comment that I am re-examining the issue in the light of that information.]

[fish]

Psyber it's all well and good to demand scientific rigour now but where was it before, when you applied none whatsoever and subsequently totally misunderstood what the Vostok ice core data is telling us? The Vostok data was published over a decade ago - it would have been very easy to apply scientific rigour and check the data (as I did) and see that the date of the last sample in the series was from over 2,300 years ago and not from the present.

This is textbook climate change denial at work. You make a monumental blunder due to lack of scientific rigor on your part, then when the science (that you originally put forward without question) is explained to you, you try to shoot it down.

Give me a break...

[Psyber]

Psyber it's all well and good to demand scientific rigour now but where was it before, when you applied none whatsoever and subsequently totally misunderstood what the Vostok ice core data is telling us? The Vostok data was published over a decade ago - it would have been very easy to apply scientific rigour and check the data (as I did) and see that the date of the last sample in the series was from over 2,300 years ago and not from the present.

This is textbook climate change denial at work. You make a monumental blunder due to lack of scientific rigor on your part, then when the science (that you originally put forward without question) is explained to you, you try to shoot it down.

Give me a break...

Fish, I was applying what rigour I could to the issue using the only data I had - I hadn't found the figures you revealed here, in my searches.
I am grateful to you for providing them and I am giving them serious consideration.
Presumably, your working in a related area, as you recently mentioned, helped you know where to search for the data.

I am not trying to "shoot down" the data but to look at the validity of the comparisons given there are two different sampling mechanisms involved.
I have already acknowledged that the figures I was relying on in the past are out of date.

I think the questions I am asking now are valid ones, and I am happy for you to explain why they are not if you can.
That would be better than trying to bully me, and everyone else here, into accepting your conclusions from them blindfold.
And even if I had been slack in the past that doesn't mean I should be slack now - that would be illogical.

[redandblack]

Psyber, it's not bullying. fish has put forward a detailed, reasoned argument and suggested you applied a different standard when you wanted to believe, rather than when you didn't.

You eventually grudgingly half-admit that, athough it took to your last sentence to say that even if you had been slack in the past.... etc.

I think fish has made his point and it's a bit churlish to hide behind a 'bullying' accusation.

[Psyber]

Psyber, it's not bullying. fish has put forward a detailed, reasoned argument and suggested you applied a different standard when you wanted to believe, rather than when you didn't.
You eventually grudgingly half-admit that, athough it took to your last sentence to say that even if you had been slack in the past.... etc.
I think fish has made his point and it's a bit churlish to hide behind a 'bullying' accusation.

I did say, and I am serious, "I think the questions I am asking now are valid ones, and I am happy for you to explain why they are not if you can."
I don't know, but I want to find out, how closely we can compare CO2 figures from samples of dry air captured in a flask with figures from samples encased in water [ice] for some time.
I am looking for the answer, and I am prepared to revise my previous position on the anthropogenic contribution to current CO2 levels if the data supports it when I know how to assess the figures.
[As I said to fish, I also advised the SA politician he mentioned that I was doing so, because I believe that was the ethical thing to do.]

My last sentence is still valid: "And even if I had been slack in the past that doesn't mean I should be slack now - that would be illogical."
It was my last sentence, not because it is a grudging concession, or an afterthought, but only because it was the end of the train of thought in my reply.
[ Where would you have put it in the sequence of sentences? ]

I don't think I was slack previously - I just hadn't been able to find the data fish supplied me with.
What more could I be expected to do then, but, as I did, thank fish for the information and links and say that I will now stop to look at it carefully?

I do feel some attempt at bullying is involved when, after I say that, anyone pushes the idea that if the raw figures disagree with my past view I should just accept it without checking the validity of the comparison, given the two different sampling methods involved. Addressing my concern would be more productive and helpful. I am seeking truth here, not playing politics..

I am happy to receive input from anyone who has real scientific knowledge about this issue of comparing the sampling techniques.

[Q.]

Academy of Science: are human activities causing climate change?

The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are well known, from modern measurements and by analysis of the air from past eras, trapped as bubbles in ice from Antarctica and Greenland (see Figure 4.1). These observations tell us that atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide began to rise 200-300 years ago, after changing relatively little since the end of the last Ice Age thousands of years earlier.

This increase in greenhouse gas concentration happened around the same time as industrialisation, when the global human population began growing rapidly and farming also increased. The growth in greenhouse gases has accelerated through the 20th century to the present (see Figure 4.1).

[scoob]

Firstly without doubt humans have, and are, increasing the CO2 levels in our atmosphere... is it all too late though... Can anyone seriously see all civilisation on the earth adopting green energy? the fact that we (as the human race) are making token efforts to reduce CO2 emissions - whilst we continually growing in numbers and using more energy - I cant help that feel that a reduce in CO2 will not decrease until the fossil fuels have run out and we are ultimately forced to change our energy producing needs... Is climate change something that, instead of fixing, we learn to adapt too it, or are the effect that drastic that we are unable to adapt? are there any realistic forecast of the effects of climate change - and I'm not talking about the maps of cities flooded...
Personally - I would love to see see green energy, green cars, re planting of forests etc etc... but im also a realist that in the fact that we are being very hypocritical in the fact that, whilst we introduce a carbon tax to combat our energy consumption (and feel good about ourselves), we are encouraging coal mining, the production of petrol cars... ok, baby steps, baby steps but are baby steps going to get us to where we need to be - I personally don't think so...

[overloaded]

Firstly without doubt humans have, and are, increasing the CO2 levels in our atmosphere... is it all too late though... Can anyone seriously see all civilisation on the earth adopting green energy? the fact that we (as the human race) are making token efforts to reduce CO2 emissions - whilst we continually growing in numbers and using more energy - I cant help that feel that a reduce in CO2 will not decrease until the fossil fuels have run out and we are ultimately forced to change our energy producing needs... Is climate change something that, instead of fixing, we learn to adapt too it, or are the effect that drastic that we are unable to adapt? are there any realistic forecast of the effects of climate change - and I'm not talking about the maps of cities flooded...
Personally - I would love to see see green energy, green cars, re planting of forests etc etc... but im also a realist that in the fact that we are being very hypocritical in the fact that, whilst we introduce a carbon tax to combat our energy consumption (and feel good about ourselves), we are encouraging coal mining, the production of petrol cars... ok, baby steps, baby steps but are baby steps going to get us to where we need to be - I personally don't think so...

baby steps are better than no steps though surely. This is a huge problem we have to act now.