I have a question about CO2

[jimbob]

This is probably the report being referred to:

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

Actually my BBC story was in March not November (It was linked to in the hidden part of my post)

It doesn't disagree with yours pixel, just for accuracy, and that I noticed that I had forgotten to put the link until it was too late to edit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4803460.stm

BBC News has learned the latest data shows CO2 levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm) - 100ppm above the pre-industrial average.

The chief carbon dioxide analyst for Noaa says the latest data confirms a worrying trend that recent years have, on average, recorded double the rate of increase from just 30 years ago.

"We don't see any sign of a decrease; in fact, we're seeing the opposite, the rate of increase is accelerating," Dr Pieter Tans told the BBC.

mhaze, I doubt that the BBC would misquote someone and reportit as their own words.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Actually my BBC story was in March not November (It was linked to in the hidden part of my post)

It doesn't disagree with yours pixel, just for accuracy, and that I noticed that I had forgotten to put the link until it was too late to edit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4803460.stm






mhaze, I doubt that the BBC would misquote someone and reportit as their own words.

There is nothing actually wrong about the article, but you can see from the figures posted earlier that picking just one year is not the best way of describing the situation.

 

[jimbob]

True Enough, However I was comming at this from the attitude in post #251, where I did a ropugh calculatiopn of the mass of atmosphere (based on a surface pressure of 10m of water) and thus the mass of CO₂ in the atmosphere, and human annual emissions.

The figures for the rise in CO₂, and the emissions were of the same order of magnitude, which given my highly simplistic treatment (about 10 mins maths), and the uncertainties, was strong evidence to me that the rise in CO₂ is largely due to man's activities.

 

[gdnp]

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?

I think that that would all depend on the lag between CO2 and temperature. I suspect, but do not know, that there is probably a lag of several years between when CO2 rises and when a new equilibrium is reached. Thus a slight dip in CO2 might still be compatible with rising temperatures.

 

[CapelDodger]

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

A in a walk.

Seconded.

As you showed by adding a few months' data, Watts made himself hostage to a very short-term future.

 

[CapelDodger]

I think that that would all depend on the lag between CO2 and temperature. I suspect, but do not know, that there is probably a lag of several years between when CO2 rises and when a new equilibrium is reached. Thus a slight dip in CO2 might still be compatible with rising temperatures.

An added complication is the CO2-ocean surface interaction with its own lags. There's a natural temptation to associate the recent excursion with a lagged response to La Nina (amongst other things, obviously).

It's a great short-term field for speculation, like betting pennies on raindrops running down the window, but not something to commit to. It's something to do while the long-term works itself out.

 

[mhaze]

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.

Thank you for your reply, and although I understand your logic, I differ with you on substantive issues. You see, when I noticed the article in question by the BBC was by Richard Black, the alarm bells set in and it became necessary to question the basic data.

So let us take a look at the yearly CO2 atmospheric data set. Now I don't know if there may be some sleight of hand by which one may say that 2005 sticks out, but I just flat do not see it. That's what I have been trying to say and that is why I brought up Watt's comments about the downturn.

The onus of proving the claim, that the BBC reported correctly or that this story has any merit whatsoever is on you, or if not on you then some resident Warmer/BBC True Believer can take up that if they cares to.

I just don't see the claim in in the number stream.

(Actually the BBC just got a media release from a far left environmental group and regurgitated it, do not think that Richard Black did any original reporting here, fact checking, or validation)



CO2 Year to Year
PPM Increase

1971 326.32 1972 327.46 1.14
1973 329.68 2.22
1974 330.17 0.49
1975 331.14 0.97
1976 332.06 0.92
1977 333.78 1.72
1978 335.40 1.62
1979 336.78 1.38
1980 338.70 1.92
1981 340.11 1.41
1982 340.89 0.78
1983 342.84 1.95
1984 344.10 1.26
1985 345.87 1.77
1986 347.19 1.32
1987 348.98 1.79
1988 351.45 2.47
1989 352.89 1.44
1990 354.16 1.27
1991 355.49 1.33
1992 356.27 0.78
1993 356.96 0.69
1994 358.63 1.67
1995 360.62 1.99
1996 362.37 1.75
1997 363.47 1.10
1998 366.50 3.03
1999 368.14 1.64
2000 369.41 1.27
2001 371.07 1.66
2002 373.16 2.09
2003 375.80 2.64
2004 377.55 1.75
2005 379.75 2.20
2006 381.85 2.10
2007 383.72 1.87
Average = 352.72 1.59 Standard Dev
0.56

http://www.earthpolicy.org/Indicators/CO2/2008_data3.htm

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends

 

[TrueSceptic]

I think that that would all depend on the lag between CO2 and temperature. I suspect, but do not know, that there is probably a lag of several years between when CO2 rises and when a new equilibrium is reached. Thus a slight dip in CO2 might still be compatible with rising temperatures.

Yes, indeed, but I'm questioning why some GWSceptics seem to want CO2 levels to fall.

 

[gdnp]

Yes, indeed, but I'm questioning why some GWSceptics seem to want CO2 levels to fall.

Any data point that calls into question any portion of the AGW theory is used as justification for dismissing all the other confirmatory data. Any data that calls into question whether humans are causing the earth to heat up will be embraced: the warming has stopped, the CO2 is not rising, it's all due to sunspots, observations don't match some part of the models, etc.

 

[mhaze]

Any data point that calls into question any portion of the AGW theory is used as justification for dismissing all the other confirmatory data. Any data that calls into question whether humans are causing the earth to heat up will be embraced: the warming has stopped, the CO2 is not rising, it's all due to sunspots, observations don't match some part of the models, etc.

No comment about whether the BBC distorted data?

 

[TrueSceptic]

Any data point that calls into question any portion of the AGW theory is used as justification for dismissing all the other confirmatory data. Any data that calls into question whether humans are causing the earth to heat up will be embraced: the warming has stopped, the CO2 is not rising, it's all due to sunspots, observations don't match some part of the models, etc.

I know all that. See my HTBAGWS

But GWSceptics like to claim that temps have peaked and are dropping. They also desperately try to find anything to discredit the CO2 GW link. That link, so they claim, is being falsified right now because temps have stopped rising while CO2 levels continue to increase. They can't have it both ways by misrepresenting CO2 readings to claim they are falling too!

 

[TrueSceptic]

No comment about whether the BBC distorted data?

They quoted a figure. It was not the best way to descibe the recent history of CO2. So what?

Now, where is your comment about Watts jumping on incomplete data and making laughable claims about it?

 

[mhaze]

Actually my BBC story was in March not November (It was linked to in the hidden part of my post)
It doesn't disagree with yours pixel, just for accuracy, and that I noticed that I had forgotten to put the link until it was too late to ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4803460.stm
mhaze, I doubt that the BBC would misquote someone and reportit as their own words.

I see that your second link is not one written by Richard Black, so I would not have questioned it. I'm not terribly inclined to impute motives to people. But the 2.60 ppm increase quoted in the article isn't what I found in looking it up, so obviously they didn't carefully check, the numbers got adjusted later, they used some different data set, etc. The end result as far as this discussion goes is the same:

They found something that looked sensational and supported an alarmist viewpoint on climate change (which looks groundless), reported it, and never corrected the error.

Jimbob took the BBC seriously and started doing calculations. What is the moral of the story?

Never believe the popular press on climate change and least of all the BBC?

 

[jimbob]

I took the figure of 381ppm as representitive of the CO₂ concentration (This is still valid).

I estimated the mass of the atmosphere, and thus the mass of CO₂ in the atmosphere.

I looked up annual human emissions of CO₂ and then calculated what percentage of the total CO₂ this equated to.

These figures, with all their uncertainties and approximations were of a similar magnitude to the reported annual increases in CO₂ concentrations.

Given the approximations, adn lack of accounting for carbon sinks and the other positive and negative feedback loops I still say that this is highly indicitive that humans are responsible for the rise in CO₂.

I did not try to replicate the analyses that climatologists were doing, as this was a 10-minute calclation, not multiple PhD theses. My estimate used the sort of rough calculation that competent engineers would use to sanity check more complex models.

The OP was asking how much of the rise in CO₂ could be attriuted to human activity. These rough calclulations would make me conclude that the vast majority could be...

In another thread Jerome da Gnome said that human activity was too insignificant to affect the Earth's atmosphere. These *rough* calculations show that this is not the case.

EDIT: Why should I not have taken the reported levels seriously?

 

[mhaze]

I took the figure of 381ppm as representitive of the CO₂ concentration (This is still valid).

I estimated the mass of the atmosphere, and thus the mass of CO₂ in the atmosphere.

I looked up annual human emissions of CO₂ and then calculated what percentage of the total CO₂ this equated to.

These figures, with all their uncertainties and approximations were of a similar magnitude to the reported annual increases in CO₂ concentrations.

Given the approximations, adn lack of accounting for carbon sinks and the other positive and negative feedback loops I still say that this is highly indicitive that humans are responsible for the rise in CO₂.

I did not try to replicate the analyses that climatologists were doing, as this was a 10-minute calclation, not multiple PhD theses. My estimate used the sort of rough calculation that competent engineers would use to sanity check more complex models.

The OP was asking how much of the rise in CO₂ could be attriuted to human activity. These rough calclulations would make me conclude that the vast majority could be...

In another thread Jerome da Gnome said that human activity was too insignificant to affect the Earth's atmosphere. These *rough* calculations show that this is not the case.

EDIT: Why should I not have taken the reported levels seriously?

I can't disagree. Your method was sound.

 

[jimbob]

And the conclusion?

 

[gdnp]

No comment about whether the BBC distorted data?

I'm still not sure what your point is. BBC called it 2.6: I'm not sure where this number came from. Trueskeptic's number is 2.5, yours is 2.2. Even 2.2 is the 5th largest increase in 36 years, which makes it "one of the largest increases on record."

Do I think the BBC reporter made up a 2.6 ppm increase, knowing that the real number was 2.2? No. Not very likely. Might he have erroneously rounded 2.53 up to 2.6? Again, doubtful that this would be done intentionally, since for 99% of the population the absolute numbers are meaningless.

 

[mhaze]

I'm still not sure what your point is. BBC called it 2.6: I'm not sure where this number came from. Trueskeptic's number is 2.5, yours is 2.2. Even 2.2 is the 5th largest increase in 36 years, which makes it "one of the largest increases on record."

Do I think the BBC reporter made up a 2.6 ppm increase, knowing that the real number was 2.2? No. Not very likely. Might he have erroneously rounded 2.53 up to 2.6? Again, doubtful that this would be done intentionally, since for 99% of the population the absolute numbers are meaningless.

It is simple. You stated positively you would go with the story A, not B, C or D. I wondered if that was still the case, having shown by reference to the NOAA data that there was no substance behind their claim, and their story.

And the conclusion?

Let's put it like this. Look at the actual data set, then draw a conclusion. Me? I look at it and wonder where exactly the missing carbon sink is and what it's mechanism of operation is. You may well have a different conclusion.

Media conclusion: Typical BBC reporting of alarmist AGW with no solid basis in facts, followed up by no correction posted when/if it became obvious there was an error. Sloppy reporting but in line with the stated bias and editorial intent.

 

[TrueSceptic]

I'm still not sure what your point is. BBC called it 2.6: I'm not sure where this number came from. Trueskeptic's number is 2.5, yours is 2.2. Even 2.2 is the 5th largest increase in 36 years, which makes it "one of the largest increases on record."

Do I think the BBC reporter made up a 2.6 ppm increase, knowing that the real number was 2.2? No. Not very likely. Might he have erroneously rounded 2.53 up to 2.6? Again, doubtful that this would be done intentionally, since for 99% of the population the absolute numbers are meaningless.

I gave 2 figures for that year, one for Mauna Loa, one for global average.

What is important to acknowledge is that these figures are subject to revision because of calibration errors, data acquisition errors, etc.

What is relevant here is that mhaze is refusing to recognise the behaviour of Watts and his cronies over most recent data and is using the older BBC items as smoke screens.

 

[Spud1k]

Let's put it like this. Look at the actual data set, then draw a conclusion. Me? I look at it and wonder where exactly the missing carbon sink is and what it's mechanism of operation is. You may well have a different conclusion.

Even if there is an extra sink, what, in your opinion, are the chances that this unknown sink is going to swallow up all the excess CO2 and make everything right again? Be honest here.

And anyway, you don't believe that CO2 causes global warming anyway, so what do you care?

Media conclusion: Typical BBC reporting of alarmist AGW with no solid basis in facts, followed up by no correction posted when/if it became obvious there was an error. Sloppy reporting but in line with the stated bias and editorial intent.

Ad hom much?