I have a question about CO2

lomiller said:
or not...
Click to expand...
Brilliant! May I rephrase your enshrined Tamino

FROM:

This is really a typical Wattsism: take anything you can find, even if it’s based on so little data as to be utterly meaningless and isn’t really out of the ordinary anyway, and use it to suggest ludicrous ideas which of course fit Watts’ nutjob notions about how our atmosphere is changing. In this case, we should doubt that man-made CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere and that extra CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for centuries.

TO:

This is really a typical British BBCism: take anything you can find, even if it’s based on so little data as to be utterly meaningless and isn’t really out of the ordinary anyway, and use it to suggest ludicrous Global Warming ideas which of course fit British BBC's far left environmental reporter Richard Black’ nutjob notions about how our atmosphere is changing. In this case, we should believe that man-made CO2 is poisoning the atmosphere …

But "It don't add up"....


 
Last edited:
No real surprise that you missed Tamino’s point. He was saying you don’t make projections based on insufficient data. Form that you seem to take away the idea that’s it’s time to sidetrack the discussion by presenting unrelated plots based on insufficient data.
 
lomiller said:
No real surprise that you missed Tamino’s point. He was saying you don’t make projections based on insufficient data. Form that you seem to take away the idea that’s it’s time to sidetrack the discussion by presenting unrelated plots based on insufficient data.
Click to expand...
Not missed, but welcomed:

A Warmer (defined: one whose conclusions on insufficient data achieves sublime levels of blissful confirmation bias in apocalyptic futures)

A Warmer, lecturing solemnly on travesties of thought and errors of method.....:clap:

Warm:hypnodisklogy.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
As you can see from the actual data, there is no change in trend and no visual difference between 2005 and other years. There was some kind of a hyped up story from the BBC on this topic in 2005, yes. Wait....in 2008 the trendline is dropping precipitously....there may be a dramaticly lower CO2 amount for 2008!

Never mind, that doesn't make a sensational headline...;)
Click to expand...
What are you posting that for? You know perfectly well that it's not only out of date but typical Watts misinformation/incompetence.

Do you imagine you'd get away with that drivel here?
 
TrueSceptic said:
mhaze said:
As you can see from the actual data, there is no change in trend and no visual difference between 2005 and other years. There was some kind of a hyped up story from the BBC on this topic in 2005, yes. Wait....in 2008 the trendline is dropping precipitously....there may be a dramaticly lower CO2 amount for 2008!

Never mind, that doesn't make a sensational headline...
Click to expand...
What are you posting that for? You know perfectly well that it's not only out of date but typical Watts misinformation/incompetence.

Do you imagine you'd get away with that drivel here?
Click to expand...

What is the real data please?
 
jimbob said:
What is the real data please?
Click to expand...

I didn't see anything wrong with your analysis, just took issue with the fact that the BBC sensational reporting was at work, and that as you had noted, natural sinks absorb a large amount of the CO2. Leave it to the resident Warmers to make a big deal of my counter example, but to let the BBC sensationalism go by without a word.

The actual data including in table form can be had from NOAA in the link I posted earlier.
 
jimbob said:
What is the real data please?
Click to expand...

mhaze post is based on Mauna Loa CO2 data. What he disingenuously left out, quoted from his own reference, was this:

The global data plot below doesn’t show the same trend as Mauna Loa, so it appears that this CO2 dropoff at Mauna Loa is a regional effect due to Hawaii’s proximity to cooler ocean temperatures.
Click to expand...

Global CO2 continues to rise, as expected.
 
gdnp said:
mhaze post is based on Mauna Loa CO2 data. What he disingenuously left out, quoted from his own reference, was this:
....
Global CO2 continues to rise, as expected.
Click to expand...

From the discussion at the base of the chart in my link:
This simple graph of the Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide Record documents a 0.53 percent or two parts per million per year increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1958.
​
Which you disingenuously left out in your commentary was any semblance of facts. Oh wait, you said that I "disingenuously left out...quoting from his(my) own reference"... Now, that puts you in the percentile ranking of people capable of reading

The actual data including in table form can be had from NOAA in the link I posted earlier.

But wait a minute! That was me saying that, inviting you (others) to go down the link to the actual data. Well, threads do tend to get confusing after a while.

Ignoring this red herring/detour/confusion and back to the topic, which sensational reporting do you like?

A. BBC The research indicates that 2005 saw one of the largest increases on record - a rise of 2.6ppm.
B. Anthony Watts in 2008 the trendline is dropping precipitously....there may be a dramatically lower CO2 amount for 2008!
C. Neither
D. Both
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
From the discussion at the base of the chart in my link:
This simple graph of the Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide Record documents a 0.53 percent or two parts per million per year increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1958.
​
Which you disingenuously left out in your commentary was any semblance of facts. Oh wait, you said that I "disingenuously left out...quoting from his(my) own reference"... Now, that puts you in the percentile ranking of people capable of reading
Click to expand...

Gee, what happens if we add a few more months to the trend line

co2_0608.jpg


Huh. Looks like Mauna Loa CO2 continues to rise after all. At this rate about 8 years till we hit 400 ppm.

Do these facts have a bit more semblance?

ETA: as to your question of which makes the better sensational headline, neither makes a good sensational headline. Small fluctuations that do not alter the overall trend are not newsworthy.
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
the Bbc Report Is Factually Accurate 2005 Was A Particularly High Year For Atmospheric Co2. the Blog You Linked To Is Not Factually Accurate; There Is No Leveling Off In The Trend.
Click to expand...

Can you support your claims?

2001 12 371.11
2002 12 373.70
2003 12 375.97
2004 12 377.51
2005 12 380.06
2006 12 381.85
2007 12 383.94


My vote is for C, neither.

...back to the topic, which sensational reporting do you like?
A. BBC The research indicates that 2005 saw one of the largest increases on record - a rise of 2.6ppm.
B. Anthony Watts in 2008 the trendline is dropping precipitously....there may be a dramatically lower CO2 amount for 2008!
C. Neither
D. Both​
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
...back to the topic, which sensational reporting do you like?
A. BBC The research indicates that 2005 saw one of the largest increases on record - a rise of 2.6ppm.
B. Anthony Watts in 2008 the trendline is dropping precipitously....there may be a dramatically lower CO2 amount for 2008!
C. Neither
D. Both​
Click to expand...

I've thought about this some more, and come to the conclusion that I like A the best. Why? Because 2.6 ppm was one of the highest yearly increases on record, and even if only a random fluctuation pointing this out draws renewed attention to the fact that CO2 levels continue their relentless rise, with no signs of reversing or even slowing down.This is a valuable lesson to reinforce, as people tend to become fatigued and lose interest over time. Since this is a yearly change, the numbers are more robust than monthly numbers. Anyone who misses that 2006's numbers were slightly less than average is still left with a correct overall impression: CO2 levels continue to rise.

Option B is out because it is both false (the declining trend did not last for even 6 months) and because it overinterprets the data: the trend line was not dropping precipitously, as stated, it was within the range of noise seen elsewhere within the curve. Thus anyone who misses the follow-up is left with the false impression that CO2 levels are no longer rising which leads to the false conclusion that global warming is no longer a problem.

Thus the marginally sensational headline in A is beneficial while the highly sensational headline in B is detrimental.

A in a walk.
 
mhaze said:
Can you support your claims?
Click to expand...

Already supported in the article I linked to. No statistically significant trend was found. Now, when are you doing to make an attempt to back up your claim that this is a statistically significant trend, or alternatively revoke your claim if you didn’t really mean to imply it was statistically significant.
 
gdnp said:
I've thought about this some more, and come to the conclusion that I like A the best. Why? Because 2.6 ppm was one of the highest yearly increases on record, and even if only a random fluctuation pointing this out draws renewed attention to the fact that CO2 levels continue their relentless rise, with no signs of reversing or even slowing down.This is a valuable lesson to reinforce, as people tend to become fatigued and lose interest over time. Since this is a yearly change, the numbers are more robust than monthly numbers. Anyone who misses that 2006's numbers were slightly less than average is still left with a correct overall impression: CO2 levels continue to rise.
Click to expand...
From NOAA
Annual Mean
Growth Rate
Mauna Loa, Hawaii
year ppm/yr
1959 0.95
1960 0.51
1961 0.95
1962 0.69
1963 0.73
1964 0.29
1965 0.98
1966 1.23
1967 0.75
1968 1.02
1969 1.34
1970 1.02
1971 0.82
1972 1.76
1973 1.18
1974 0.78
1975 1.10
1976 0.91
1977 2.09
1978 1.31
1979 1.68
1980 1.80
1981 1.43
1982 0.72
1983 2.16
1984 1.37
1985 1.24
1986 1.51
1987 2.33
1988 2.09
1989 1.27
1990 1.31
1991 1.02
1992 0.43
1993 1.35
1994 1.90
1995 1.98
1996 1.19
1997 1.96
1998 2.93
1999 0.94
2000 1.74
2001 1.59
2002 2.56
2003 2.27
2004 1.57
2005 2.53
2006 1.72
2007 2.14

Annual Mean
Growth Rate
Global Average
year ppm/yr
1980 1.68
1981 1.08
1982 0.96
1983 1.80
1984 1.38
1985 1.65
1986 1.06
1987 2.61
1988 2.23
1989 1.31
1990 1.28
1991 0.83
1992 0.68
1993 1.13
1994 1.65
1995 2.02
1996 1.06
1997 1.95
1998 2.93
1999 1.37
2000 1.21
2001 1.87
2002 2.41
2003 2.24
2004 1.61
2005 2.42
2006 1.79
2007 2.17

Clearly there is a lot of variation in these figures and anyone who makes wild claims about a few months, or even a whole year, is being careless at best.

Option B is out because it is both false (the declining trend did not last for even 6 months) and because it overinterprets the data: the trend line was not dropping precipitously, as stated, it was within the range of noise seen elsewhere within the curve. Thus anyone who misses the follow-up is left with the false impression that CO2 levels are no longer rising which leads to the false conclusion that global warming is no longer a problem.

Thus the marginally sensational headline in A is beneficial while the highly sensational headline in B is detrimental.

A in a walk.
Click to expand...
The BBC claim (does anyone have the actual quote?) is IMO not really justified. Watts, of course, was entirely unjustified in his typically wacko claim.

BTW Surely if CO2 levels were levelling and then dropping (which is near impossible in the immediate future, of course), wouldn't that strengthen the CO2-temp link if temps were levelling and then dropping as many "sceptics" claim?
 
TrueSceptic said:
The BBC claim (does anyone have the actual quote?)
Click to expand...
This is probably the report being referred to:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6189600.stm

Carbon emissions show sharp rise

The rise in humanity's emissions of carbon dioxide has accelerated sharply, according to a new analysis.

The Global Carbon Project says that emissions were rising by less than 1% annually up to the year 2000, but are now rising at 2.5% per year.

It says the acceleration comes mainly from a rise in charcoal consumption and a lack of new energy efficiency gains.

The global research network released its latest analysis at a scientific meeting in Australia.

Dr Mike Raupach of the Australian government's research organisation CSIRO, who co-chairs the Global Carbon Project, told delegates that 7.9 billion tonnes (gigatonnes, Gt) of carbon passed into the atmosphere last year. In 2000, the figure was 6.8Gt.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom