I have a question about CO2

[gdnp]

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.

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.

Mauna Loa data:

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 average rate of increase: 0.8 ppm per year


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 average rate of increase: 1.9 ppm per year

so the BBC article states:

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.

check. Was 0.8, now 1.9

"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.

check. CO2 not falling, increasing at accelerating rate: the curve slopes upwards.

The precise level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is of global concern because climate scientists fear certain thresholds may be "tipping points" that trigger sudden changes.

check. There are certainly climate scientists who believe this, even if you do not.

The UK government's chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir David King, said the new data highlighted the importance of taking urgent action to limit carbon emissions.

"Today we're over 380 ppm," he said. "That's higher than we've been for over a million years, possibly 30 million years. Mankind is changing the climate."

check. Although not explicitly supported by the data here, these are widely accepted by climate scientists.

Which part of these conclusions do you claim has "no solid basis in facts?" Which are worthy of retraction?

 

[Pipirr]

Which part of these conclusions do you claim has "no solid basis in facts?" Which are worthy of retraction?

For a little context, the BBC is obviously on some kind of blacklist. I guess because Richard Black, BBC journalist, took the outrageous step of asking deniers to back up their claims that non consensus supporting climate research was being suppressed. No evidence was forthcoming and he duly reported that.

Maybe he has sinned against the skeptics again since then, but whatever the reason, just mention his name or the BBC and some folks become positively florid. Given that, it may not even register with them if a BBC report is factually correct; the red mist has descended and their jowls are frothing.

And to think that the Beeb, of all things, could arouse such passion.

 

[a_unique_person]

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

They need to get some sort of consensus happening.

 

[mhaze]

Mauna Loa data:

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 average rate of increase: 0.8 ppm per year


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 average rate of increase: 1.9 ppm per year

so the BBC article states:

check. Was 0.8, now 1.9

Not check. where is 30 years? Looks more like 40. 2005-30 is 1975, so I started the series I posted at 1971. But hey, maybe the BBC got the 30 wrong as well as the 2.6.

 

[gdnp]

1971 0.82
1972 1.76
1973 1.18
1974 0.78
1975 1.10 Average increase 1.1 ppm per year

2001 1.59
2002 2.56
2003 2.27
2004 1.57
2005 2.53 Average increase 2.1 ppm per year

Mhaze, you are absolutely correct! The BBC reporter quoted a scientist that said that the rate of increase had doubled over 30 years, when the rate really only increased 1.9 fold. For the rate to have doubled, you'd have to go back 35 years, not 30!

I think we should demand the BBC issue a retraction.

Is this the best you can do for "no solid basis in facts?"

 

[mhaze]

1971 0.82
1972 1.76
1973 1.18
1974 0.78
1975 1.10 Average increase 1.1 ppm per year

2001 1.59
2002 2.56
2003 2.27
2004 1.57
2005 2.53 Average increase 2.1 ppm per year

Mhaze, you are absolutely correct! The BBC reporter quoted a scientist that said that the rate of increase had doubled over 30 years, when the rate really only increased 1.9 fold. For the rate to have doubled, you'd have to go back 35 years, not 30!

I think we should demand the BBC issue a retraction.

Is this the best you can do for "no solid basis in facts?"

Why are our base numbers different?

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 383.7

etc, etc.

 

[gdnp]

Why are our base numbers different?

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 383.7

etc, etc.

I have been using Truesceptics NOAA Mauna Loa numbers from post 279, because they went back the furthest. The global numbers only go back to 1980, and thus could not be used to compare 2005 to 1975.

your earthwatch institute data is a bit different. I'm not sure why.

ETA: regardless, using your numbers, 1970-1975 averages 1.1 ppm per year change, while 2000-2005 averages 2.1 ppm per year change, which is close enough to justify the statement "recent years have, on average, recorded double the rate of increase from just 30 years ago." I call that a "solid basis in facts".

 

[Cuddles]

I call that a "solid basis in facts".

Meh, you can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.

 

[TrueSceptic]

For a little context, the BBC is obviously on some kind of blacklist. I guess because Richard Black, BBC journalist, took the outrageous step of asking deniers to back up their claims that non consensus supporting climate research was being suppressed. No evidence was forthcoming and he duly reported that.

Maybe he has sinned against the skeptics again since then, but whatever the reason, just mention his name or the BBC and some folks become positively florid. Given that, it may not even register with them if a BBC report is factually correct; the red mist has descended and their jowls are frothing.

And to think that the Beeb, of all things, could arouse such passion.

It all makes sense if you see it from a political perspective. Right-wingers hate the BBC because it is so left-wing (according to them!). GWSceptics hate the BBC because it supports mainstream climate (and other) science. GWSceptics tend to be right-wing, so the BBC is obviously a source of "left-wing propaganda".

 

[jimbob]

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.

Me, I looked and saw that the reported rate of rise was similar in size to (but smaller than) mankind's current annual emissons of CO₂.

This is enough to make me receptive to the idea that the rise in CO₂ is due to mankind's activities.

I can think of both positive and engative fedback loops, which *I* can't quantify as they would require a lot of time and effort, and which is what professional atmospheric scientists are investigating.

I then looked at CO₂ data over the past 400,000 years, which I plotted on a log plot, and saw that the CO₂ levels are currrently higher than in the previous 400,000 years, this confirmed that these levels are abnormal for the past 400,000 years:



Looking at the CO₂ levels, we then see that this rise seems to begin around about the time of the industrial revolution:

Remember this is a log plot, so straight lines are constant ratio changes (horizontal is multiplying by 1 every decade and thus no change)

This is not conclusive proof that the rise is due to the rise in industrial output, but it is pretty good circumstantial evidence. It is enough for me to shift the reburden of proof to those denying the link. I haven't seen anything except vague handwaving arguments that have even less complexity than my analyses. (Calling something "warmology" doesn't count as disproving the link).

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?

Spud1k,

From what I understand about negative feedback loops*, these can *reduce* the magnitude of any shift, but don't actually eliminate it. For that, wouldn't you neeed active control? I suppose additional positive feedback loops could instantaneously do that, but in an unstable fashion and lead to oscilations, which I would think are a Bad Thing.

In other words, an increase in CO2 might be reduced, but not eliminated.

*In differential amplifiers for example...

 

[Spud1k]

Spud1k,

From what I understand about negative feedback loops*, these can *reduce* the magnitude of any shift, but don't actually eliminate it. For that, wouldn't you neeed active control? I suppose additional positive feedback loops could instantaneously do that, but in an unstable fashion and lead to oscilations, which I would think are a Bad Thing.

In other words, an increase in CO2 might be reduced, but not eliminated.

That's exactly the point I'm driving at. Even if the rate of CO2 increase were to blip downward briefly, I can think of no conceivable mechanism whereby the overall concentration could be reduced back down to pre industrial levels. Perhaps mhaze could enlighten us.

 

[lomiller]

From what I understand about negative feedback loops*, these can *reduce* the magnitude of any shift, but don't actually eliminate it.

A negative feedback loop will still respond to a change in input (forcing), but that response will be less sensitive to changes then if the feedback didn’t exist. This doesn’t mean the response is less because even if you take out feedback any forward gain in the system still exists.

The nice thing about negative feedback is that with a large enough forward gain that response is almost entirely controlled by the feedback factor. I.E. if you have a transistor that could amplify your signal anywhere from 200X – 400X depending on how it happened to turn out in the manufacturing process you can use negative feedback to almost completely eliminate any effects resulting variation in the transistor itself. If you have a large gain you could control the feedback to completely eliminate the effect of a forcing on the system.

When negative feedback is in play all climate effects are lower then a forcing of that size would otherwise create. Positive feedback exhibits the exact opposite behavior and all responses are magnified rather then reduced. Since CO2 response is a scaled down version of what we are emitting, CO2 feedback must currently be negative but since climate isn’t linear this can change.

I suppose additional positive feedback loops could instantaneously do that, but in an unstable fashion and lead to oscilations, which I would think are a

In general negative feedback is less susceptible to instability then positive feedback, but either can be stable or unstable. In linear systems where there is no time delay negative feedback is always stable, but if the system isn’t linear or if there is a delay between forcing and feedback all bets are off.

Positive feedback is generally stable/unstable based on gain, or more accurately they are generally stable if gain * feedback factor is less then 1. (Since you don’t have some massive source of power actively amplifying solar forcing gain in this case must be less then 1 once units are accounted for) As in negative feedback time delays or non-linearity complicates the situation.

 

[David Rodale]

A negative feedback loop will still respond to a change in input (forcing), but that response will be less sensitive to changes then if the feedback didn’t exist. This doesn’t mean the response is less because even if you take out feedback any forward gain in the system still exists.

The nice thing about negative feedback is that with a large enough forward gain that response is almost entirely controlled by the feedback factor. I.E. if you have a transistor that could amplify your signal anywhere from 200X – 400X depending on how it happened to turn out in the manufacturing process you can use negative feedback to almost completely eliminate any effects resulting variation in the transistor itself. If you have a large gain you could control the feedback to completely eliminate the effect of a forcing on the system.

When negative feedback is in play all climate effects are lower then a forcing of that size would otherwise create. Positive feedback exhibits the exact opposite behavior and all responses are magnified rather then reduced. Since CO2 response is a scaled down version of what we are emitting, CO2 feedback must currently be negative but since climate isn’t linear this can change.



In general negative feedback is less susceptible to instability then positive feedback, but either can be stable or unstable. In linear systems where there is no time delay negative feedback is always stable, but if the system isn’t linear or if there is a delay between forcing and feedback all bets are off.

Positive feedback is generally stable/unstable based on gain, or more accurately they are generally stable if gain * feedback factor is less then 1. (Since you don’t have some massive source of power actively amplifying solar forcing gain in this case must be less then 1 once units are accounted for) As in negative feedback time delays or non-linearity complicates the situation.

Did you ever find that black hole in the atmosphere storing the missing heat you say will unleash its fury at some unknown date?

BTW, what is earth's climate sensitivity?

 

[mhaze]

I have been using Truesceptics NOAA Mauna Loa numbers from post 279, because they went back the furthest. The global numbers only go back to 1980, and thus could not be used to compare 2005 to 1975.

your earthwatch institute data is a bit different. I'm not sure why.

ETA: regardless, using your numbers, 1970-1975 averages 1.1 ppm per year change, while 2000-2005 averages 2.1 ppm per year change, which is close enough to justify the statement "recent years have, on average, recorded double the rate of increase from just 30 years ago." I call that a "solid basis in facts".

Surprise, Truesceptic agrees with me on this in post 279. Seemed to me, how could you hype 2005 when 1998 was so much higher?

I had data going further back but stripped them as irrelevant.

Anyway, the BBC bs here is pretty much beat to death.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Surprise, Truesceptic agrees with me on this in post 279. Seemed to me, how could you hype 2005 when 1998 was so much higher?

I had data going further back but stripped them as irrelevant.

Anyway, the BBC bs here is pretty much beat to death.

I have said all along that singling out one year (or month) is wrong with this sort of data, and BTW 2002 also stands out, but surely the BBC journo is just quoting a scientist?

 

[Cuddles]

Surprise, Truesceptic agrees with me on this in post 279. Seemed to me, how could you hype 2005 when 1998 was so much higher?

So you're trying to say that nothing can be happening because the last decade has seen more than one big spike on a background of continuous increase? That's a little odd, to say the least.

 

[lomiller]

Did you ever find that black hole in the atmosphere storing the missing heat you say will unleash its fury at some unknown date?

They are called Oceans, big wet things. You may have heard of them.

 

[gdnp]

Anyway, the BBC bs here is pretty much beat to death.

The only BS about the BBC report is your characterization of it as hyped. They called the 2005 increase one of the largest on record, which it was, and noted that CO2 levels are rising at twice the rate that they were 30 years ago, which they are.

 

[TrueSceptic]

The only BS about the BBC report is your characterization of it as hyped. They called the 2005 increase one of the largest on record, which it was, and noted that CO2 levels are rising at twice the rate that they were 30 years ago, which they are.

It's also the case that the trend has increased from 0.7 ppm/y at the start of the Mauna Loa record to 2.1 ppm/y now, so that levels are rising at 3 times the rate they were 50 years ago.

 

[gdnp]

It's also the case that the trend has increased from 0.7 ppm/y at the start of the Mauna Loa record to 2.1 ppm/y now, so that levels are rising at 3 times the rate they were 50 years ago.

alarmist.