Re: IPCC Hockey Stick debunked (again): Little Ice Age Latest Study
Eric Swanson
>
>In article <1120947958.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
rcop...@adnc.com says...
>>
>>Eric, this is a SINGLE stalagmite. It is ONE point, anecdotal
>>evidence.
>>(Remember John Daly and his rock? He thought that his single tide mark
>>outweighed the hundreds of tide gauges and satellite measurements.
>>Just like the late Mr. Daly, this paper claims that its single
>>observation can tell the climate of the last 2,000 years.
>>
>>There are many other studies, with tens of thousands of measurements,
>>One should listen to them too. Would you believe anyone who tried to
>>divine today's global mean temperature with the record of a single
>>site?
>
>It's true that only one site is usually of little value. I've not seen the
>paper either, so I can't really offer much of a comment. I did find the
>data though, which showed a relatively warm period before 1400.
I've now taken a quick look at the paper:
A. Mangini, C. Spötl and P. Verdes, Reconstruction of temperature in the
Central Alps during the past 2000 yr from a d18O stalagmite record,
Earth and Planetary Science Letters 235, 741-751 15 July 2005.
The authors compared their speleotherm data with Loehle's interpretation of
Keigwin's paper in SCIENCE. They also compare it with tree ring data and
with the NH temperature reconstruction of Moberg et al..
There appears to be close agreement between the various reconstructions,
except that the speleotherm results indicate a greater warming during the MWP
in tha Alps than what is seen in the NH results. I need to do a little more
thinking about their use of Loehle's analysis technique, which they apply to
their time series.
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
raylopez99
(Anthropogenic Global Warming) fanatic!
Good to see you have an open mind.
Indeed, you are correct to point out that a single observation point,
if properly located, is indicative of an entire region. After all,
isn't that exactly what the AGW crowd wants us to believe with the
Hawaiian CO2 measuring station? The so-called "mixing bowl" to the
world, that supposedly miraculously mixes all CO2 sources and sinks and
comes up with a composite world average, based on instruments of
unproven design? Yeah, right (not). But fight fire with fire Eric,
keep it up!
Isn't satellite data, which is acknowledged to be less accurate than
balloon data, and which is not calibrated over decades, also at odds
with balloon data that shows not as much global warming? But Ian the
Intemperate Idiot wants us to believe that a transducer the size of a
coffee can in a satellite somewhere in outer space is better than
ground based data; when the satellite traverses the same path every
period. Yeah right (not).
Wake up AGW idiots--the 1 degree change in temperature could be
instrument error--or it could be natural, or it could be nothing at
all.
What is needed is more data from more than just a handful of data
points. Last I checked, the newest Denmark CO2 station using modern
German instruments was reporting a DECREASE in CO2. Yet the Kazikstan
station based on Soviet era instruments was contrary. You choose to
believe what you want to believe.
IDIOT GW FANATICS LET ME BE CLEAR: the burden of proof is on YOU, not
I. Because you seek to plunge the world into a Global Economic Ice
Age. You must prove by clear and convincing evidence, if not Beyond A
Reasonable Doubt, your case. Don't plead the misunderstood scientist.
Show us UNAMBIGUOUS proof, not 1 degree changes and computer software
simulations that show a mere 30 cm rises in sea levels (if that).
RL
Eric Swanson wrote:
> In article <dapq6d$2pc$1...@news3.infoave.net>, swa...@notspam.net says...
> >
> >In article <1120947958.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> rcop...@adnc.com says...
> >>
> >>Eric, this is a SINGLE stalagmite. It is ONE point, anecdotal
> >>evidence.
> >>There are many other studies, with tens of thousands of measurements,
Coby Beck
news:1121118135.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Indeed, you are correct to point out that a single observation point,
> if properly located, is indicative of an entire region.
A region is still not the globe, Ray
> isn't that exactly what the AGW crowd wants us to believe with the
> Hawaiian CO2 measuring station? The so-called "mixing bowl" to the
> world, that supposedly miraculously mixes all CO2 sources and sinks and
> comes up with a composite world average, based on instruments of
C'mon. you were blathering about this months ago. You were told that there
are more than 100 CO2 monitoring stations. Check these here, and note the
are well distributed, not just Hawaii:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel.htm
> Isn't satellite data, which is acknowledged to be less accurate than
> balloon data, and which is not calibrated over decades, also at odds
> with balloon data that shows not as much global warming? But Ian the
> Intemperate Idiot wants us to believe that a transducer the size of a
> coffee can in a satellite somewhere in outer space is better than
> ground based data; when the satellite traverses the same path every
> period. Yeah right (not).
Sounds like you have more confidence in the ground measurements. Me too.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
> Wake up AGW idiots--the 1 degree change in temperature could be
> instrument error
No.
> --or it could be natural
It would still require a cause and a very dramatice one. Similar dramatic
swings are not common place in the historical record.
> or it could be nothing at all.
Yeah, that's is. It's nothing. A 1oC temperature rise is actually no
temperature rise.
> What is needed is more data from more than just a handful of data
> points.
How many do we need to give you before you can count higher than one?
> Last I checked, the newest Denmark CO2 station using modern
> German instruments was reporting a DECREASE in CO2.
This is interesting. Do you have a reference?
> IDIOT GW FANATICS LET ME BE CLEAR: the burden of proof is on YOU, not
> I.
This is good, because you are clearly not capable of even making a coherent
point, much less proving it.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Roger Coppock
> Wake up AGW idiots--the 1 degree change in temperature could be
> instrument error
You're a slow learner Mr. Lopez. We've covered this before.
Instrument error just isn't possible from either harware
design or statistics. Ground, Radiosonde, and MSU data all
say warming, eventhough they come from radically different
hardware. 10s of millions of instruments can't all have
that same warming error. Not even a fraction of them large
enought to create a bias could have the same error. Face
it, the world is warming. Even GeeDubya has faced the facts;
why can't you, Ray?
Eric Swanson
>
>Bravo Eric! Kudos to you, and I thought for sure you were a AGW
>(Anthropogenic Global Warming) fanatic!
>
>Good to see you have an open mind.
Actually, I'm more of a Knee Jerk Environmentalist...
>Indeed, you are correct to point out that a single observation point,
>if properly located, is indicative of an entire region. After all,
>isn't that exactly what the AGW crowd wants us to believe with the
>Hawaiian CO2 measuring station? The so-called "mixing bowl" to the
>world, that supposedly miraculously mixes all CO2 sources and sinks and
>comes up with a composite world average, based on instruments of
>unproven design? Yeah, right (not). But fight fire with fire Eric,
>keep it up!
As I recall, Keeling picked Hawaii because it was far away from the local
influences of land sources. Even so, his data shows a clear signal from
the NH annual cycle. When averaged over several years, the trend appears.
>Isn't satellite data, which is acknowledged to be less accurate than
>balloon data, and which is not calibrated over decades, also at odds
>with balloon data that shows not as much global warming? But Ian the
>Intemperate Idiot wants us to believe that a transducer the size of a
>coffee can in a satellite somewhere in outer space is better than
>ground based data; when the satellite traverses the same path every
>period. Yeah right (not).
Get with the program, Raymond! The MSU/AMSU satellite data is still
controversial. There are now 5 different interpretations of this data,
with no clear winner. That said, one must understand that all the data
sources have their problems. Now that the MSU shows a warming trend,
it has suddenly become popular with the AGW fanatics, just as it was
popular with the anti-AGW fanatics when the first data analysis showed
little or no warming. As the old saying goes, "Thurn about is fair play".
w...@bas.ac.uk
>As I recall, Keeling picked Hawaii because it was far away from the local
>influences of land sources. Even so, his data shows a clear signal from
>the NH annual cycle. When averaged over several years, the trend appears.
There is some nice history to this, which is in Spencer Wearts book
(discovery of GW) and probably his web site too. Nowadays, any fool can
buy a CO2-ometer and measure it to high precision. Then, it was much harder,
and it wasn't really known quite what the level was, or how it varied -
different measurements gave different answers. Part of K's importance
was in refining the CO2 measurements techniques so that they were
accurate and reproducable. Going somewhere far from agriculture/
industry was a good idea too.
>>Isn't satellite data, which is acknowledged to be less accurate than
>>balloon data...
I think this is a pre-emptive strike against the S+C vn5.2. Now that
the MSU doesn't show what he wants to see, he (and other septics)
are going to switch to the idea that MSU isn't really that good after
all.
-W.
--
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself
I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file & help me spread!
Lloyd Parker
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Bravo Eric! Kudos to you, and I thought for sure you were a AGW
>(Anthropogenic Global Warming) fanatic!
>
>Good to see you have an open mind.
>
>Indeed, you are correct to point out that a single observation point,
>if properly located, is indicative of an entire region. After all,
>isn't that exactly what the AGW crowd wants us to believe with the
>Hawaiian CO2 measuring station? The so-called "mixing bowl" to the
>world, that supposedly miraculously mixes all CO2 sources and sinks and
>comes up with a composite world average, based on instruments of
>unproven design? Yeah, right (not). But fight fire with fire Eric,
>keep it up!
>
>Isn't satellite data, which is acknowledged to be less accurate than
>balloon data, and which is not calibrated over decades, also at odds
>with balloon data that shows not as much global warming?
All show warming though, don't they?
> But Ian the
>Intemperate Idiot wants us to believe that a transducer the size of a
>coffee can in a satellite somewhere in outer space is better than
>ground based data; when the satellite traverses the same path every
>period. Yeah right (not).
>
>Wake up AGW idiots--the 1 degree change in temperature could be
>instrument error--or it could be natural, or it could be nothing at
>all.
You should take a stats course.
>
>What is needed is more data from more than just a handful of data
>points.
Thousands good enough for you?
>Last I checked, the newest Denmark CO2 station using modern
>German instruments was reporting a DECREASE in CO2.
Then you checked 200 years ago.
> Yet the Kazikstan
>station based on Soviet era instruments was contrary. You choose to
>believe what you want to believe.
>
>IDIOT GW FANATICS LET ME BE CLEAR: the burden of proof is on YOU, not
>I.
Tried reading the scientific literature? The proof's there.
>Because you seek to plunge the world into a Global Economic Ice
>Age.
You are lying.
>You must prove by clear and convincing evidence, if not Beyond A
>Reasonable Doubt, your case.
Been done. It's called "scientific research." It's published in those
things called "scientific journals."
> Don't plead the misunderstood scientist.
>Show us UNAMBIGUOUS proof, not 1 degree changes
1 deg changes are enormous. Learn some science.
raylopez99
Coby Beck wrote:
> "raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1121118135.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Indeed, you are correct to point out that a single observation point,
> > if properly located, is indicative of an entire region.
>
> A region is still not the globe, Ray
>
> > isn't that exactly what the AGW crowd wants us to believe with the
> > Hawaiian CO2 measuring station? The so-called "mixing bowl" to the
> > world, that supposedly miraculously mixes all CO2 sources and sinks and
> > comes up with a composite world average, based on instruments of
>
> C'mon. you were blathering about this months ago. You were told that there
> are more than 100 CO2 monitoring stations. Check these here, and note the
> are well distributed, not just Hawaii:
> http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel.htm
>
See Eric's reply in this thread, who clearly got it, unlike you. The
point being that the Hawaii site is considered a good, unbiased
reference point, just like this cave is.
> > Isn't satellite data, which is acknowledged to be less accurate than
> > balloon data, and which is not calibrated over decades, also at odds
> > with balloon data that shows not as much global warming? But Ian the
> > Intemperate Idiot wants us to believe that a transducer the size of a
> > coffee can in a satellite somewhere in outer space is better than
> > ground based data; when the satellite traverses the same path every
> > period. Yeah right (not).
>
> Sounds like you have more confidence in the ground measurements. Me too.
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
>
Good we agree on something. Like Eric says, the satellite data is
ambiguous.
> > Wake up AGW idiots--the 1 degree change in temperature could be
> > instrument error
>
> No.
>
I say yes. But I see your point somewhat. Even if there's +-5 degree
slop in instrument error, you can still potentially spot a 1 degree
change in temperature, if enough sample points are taken.
> > --or it could be natural
>
> It would still require a cause and a very dramatice one. Similar dramatic
> swings are not common place in the historical record.
>
> > or it could be nothing at all.
>
> Yeah, that's is. It's nothing. A 1oC temperature rise is actually no
> temperature rise.
Not enough to worry about.
> > Last I checked, the newest Denmark CO2 station using modern
> > German instruments was reporting a DECREASE in CO2.
>
> This is interesting. Do you have a reference?
Yes, it's the CO2 station on German soil that is build and staffed by
Denmark--I believe (from memory) it starts with a "K". It's the one
site that shows a decrease in CO2 (no doubt the AGW crowd thinks it's
an outlier) so it should not be hard to find.
>
> > IDIOT GW FANATICS LET ME BE CLEAR: the burden of proof is on YOU, not
> > I.
>
> This is good, because you are clearly not capable of even making a coherent
> point, much less proving it.
>
No, you are wrong Coby. The Silent Majority has spoke--loud and
clear--through silence. The silence is deafening. If GW was such an
imminent catastrophe, people would have done something by now. It's
just not an imminent threat. It's like atomic weapons, meteors from
space, AIDS, and other such nonesense that, once properly understood,
frightens nobody. Or like governments and group action, which scares
me. What frightens me more than anything is governments...but you see
the Average Joe thinks the President and the Fed determine the economy,
and that Big Brother is looking out for them...that might even include
you? Hence Stalin, Hitler, FDR, Mao, the Pharoahs, Alexander the
Great, etc, etc from the 'heavy hand of history' as Braundel calls it.
People trust things will work out in the end. It's groupthink. Same
with GW...if in fact the climate models are correct, then 100 years
from now the future generations will deal with it, so nothing to worry
about now. Shortsighted, but, like Average Joes trust, understandable
and logical, if you believe in discount values (i.e., anything more
than 30 years out is discounted to zero, hence "perpetual bonds" pay
about the same as 50 year bonds, etc.) Nothing you can do about it
Coby. Nothing.
RL
Coby Beck
> Coby Beck wrote:
>> "raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1121118135.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> > Indeed, you are correct to point out that a single observation point,
>> > if properly located, is indicative of an entire region.
>>
>> A region is still not the globe, Ray
>>
>> > isn't that exactly what the AGW crowd wants us to believe with the
>> > Hawaiian CO2 measuring station? The so-called "mixing bowl" to the
>> > world, that supposedly miraculously mixes all CO2 sources and sinks and
>> > comes up with a composite world average, based on instruments of
>>
>> C'mon. you were blathering about this months ago. You were told that
>> there
>> are more than 100 CO2 monitoring stations. Check these here, and note
>> the
>> are well distributed, not just Hawaii:
>> http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel.htm
>>
>
> See Eric's reply in this thread, who clearly got it, unlike you. The
> point being that the Hawaii site is considered a good, unbiased
> reference point, just like this cave is.
>> A region is still not the globe, Ray
A region is still not the globe, Ray
>> Sounds like you have more confidence in the ground measurements. Me too.
>> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
>>
>> > Wake up AGW idiots--the 1 degree change in temperature could be
>> > instrument error
>>
>> No.
>>
>
> I say yes. But I see your point somewhat.
This is your entire problem. You see the point but never accept it. You
are too wedded to your conspiracy fantasies, probably out of fear of change,
so you systematically dismiss or ignore reality.
>> Yeah, that's is. It's nothing. A 1oC temperature rise is actually no
>> temperature rise.
>
> Not enough to worry about.
On what basis do you make this claim? Because 18oC and 19oC feel so similar
when you step out of your cave? Don't be such a fool, we are talking an
average over the globe over the day-night cycle. Ecosystems are much more
sensitive to things like this than your skin. Plus, we have already seen a
1oC rise and are looking at several more.
This is just more denial, closing your eyes so the danger will just go away.
>> > Last I checked, the newest Denmark CO2 station using modern
>> > German instruments was reporting a DECREASE in CO2.
>>
>> This is interesting. Do you have a reference?
>
> Yes, it's the CO2 station on German soil that is build and staffed by
> Denmark--I believe (from memory) it starts with a "K". It's the one
> site that shows a decrease in CO2 (no doubt the AGW crowd thinks it's
> an outlier) so it should not be hard to find.
"Your search - "CO2 station on German soil" "built and staffed by denmark"
"starts with a K" - did not match any documents."
(FWIW I did try a few more generous searchs)
>> This is good, because you are clearly not capable of even making a
>> coherent
>> point, much less proving it.
>
> No, you are wrong Coby.
The paragraph that follows makes my point quite nicely...
> The Silent Majority has spoke--loud and
> clear--through silence. The silence is deafening. If GW was such an
> imminent catastrophe, people would have done something by now. It's
> just not an imminent threat. It's like atomic weapons, meteors from
> space, AIDS, and other such nonesense that, once properly understood,
> frightens nobody. Or like governments and group action, which scares
> me. What frightens me more than anything is governments...but you see
> the Average Joe thinks the President and the Fed determine the economy,
> and that Big Brother is looking out for them...that might even include
> you? Hence Stalin, Hitler, FDR, Mao, the Pharoahs, Alexander the
> Great, etc, etc from the 'heavy hand of history' as Braundel calls it.
> People trust things will work out in the end. It's groupthink. Same
> with GW...if in fact the climate models are correct, then 100 years
> from now the future generations will deal with it, so nothing to worry
> about now. Shortsighted, but, like Average Joes trust, understandable
> and logical, if you believe in discount values (i.e., anything more
> than 30 years out is discounted to zero, hence "perpetual bonds" pay
> about the same as 50 year bonds, etc.) Nothing you can do about it
> Coby. Nothing.
sigh..[sometimes you're not, but usually you are an] Incoherent doofus.
w...@bas.ac.uk
>See Eric's reply in this thread, who clearly got it, unlike you. The
>point being that the Hawaii site is considered a good, unbiased
>reference point, just like this cave is.
The point you are missing is that CO2 is well mixed. Temperature, obviously,
isn't.
Eric Swanson
>> "raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>Isn't satellite data, which is acknowledged to be less accurate than
>>>balloon data...
>
>I think this is a pre-emptive strike against the S+C vn5.2. Now that
>the MSU doesn't show what he wants to see, he (and other septics) are
>going to switch to the idea that MSU isn't really that good after all.
Anybody else notice that the latest MSU/AMSU mid-troposphere data shows a
warming trend of 0.05 K? The MT data for 5.1 is also available thru June...
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2/tmtglhmam_5.1
Lloyd Parker
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> > IDIOT GW FANATICS LET ME BE CLEAR: the burden of proof is on YOU, not
>> > I.
>>
>> This is good, because you are clearly not capable of even making a
coherent
>> point, much less proving it.
>>
>
>No, you are wrong Coby. The Silent Majority has spoke--loud and
>clear--through silence. The silence is deafening.
Only to the deaf, dumb, and blind. If you think there's silence, read the
IPCC report, the NAS statement, the AGU statement, etc. Science is speaking
loud and clear. None are so deaf as those who will not hear.
>If GW was such an
>imminent catastrophe, people would have done something by now.
Yeah, sure. Note several US states and cities are acting, and most of the
world's industrialized nations have ratified Kyoto.
> It's
>just not an imminent threat. It's like atomic weapons, meteors from
>space, AIDS, and other such nonesense that, once properly understood,
>frightens nobody. Or like governments and group action, which scares
>me. What frightens me more than anything is governments...but you see
>the Average Joe thinks the President and the Fed determine the economy,
>and that Big Brother is looking out for them...that might even include
>you? Hence Stalin, Hitler, FDR, Mao, the Pharoahs, Alexander the
>Great, etc, etc from the 'heavy hand of history' as Braundel calls it.
>People trust things will work out in the end. It's groupthink. Same
>with GW...if in fact the climate models are correct, then 100 years
>from now the future generations will deal with it, so nothing to worry
>about now.
Nice of you to care about those future generations. Guess you don't plant
any trees, as they will only bloom for future generations too.
Lloyd Parker
"Coby Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
>> Last I checked, the newest Denmark CO2 station using modern
>>> > German instruments was reporting a DECREASE in CO2.
>>>
>>> This is interesting. Do you have a reference?
>>
>> Yes, it's the CO2 station on German soil that is build and staffed by
>> Denmark--I believe (from memory) it starts with a "K". It's the one
>> site that shows a decrease in CO2 (no doubt the AGW crowd thinks it's
>> an outlier) so it should not be hard to find.
>
>"Your search - "CO2 station on German soil" "built and staffed by denmark"
>"starts with a K" - did not match any documents."
>
>(FWIW I did try a few more generous searchs)
The closest I've come up with are studies about how CO2 varies during the
day (yes, it decreases at times) or from season to season (ditto), or how
Denmark is committed to decreasing its CO2 emissions.
raylopez99
Neuglobsow. Seems we are going in circles, like the movie Groundhog
Day. Why not give it a rest and stop posting to my stuff?
RL
:
2) The "mixing" is not that pronounced. For example note the sample
from Neuglobsow (NGL653N00). Why is it not a 'straight-line sloping
upwards' like the other stations?
>From a brief survey (see raw data below) I notice a disturbing
absence of measuring CO2 using the same technique. Everybody should be
using the same tools. It's as if some are using gas trapped in a
bottle; some are using spectrometers calibrated in a bizarre manner
(the Issyk-Kul (ISK242N00) station, apparently using some theoritical
calculation that ignores ground based CO2 and uses the sun as a
reference point); some using a chemical desiccant (Alligator Island);
some like the German station Neuglobsow (NGL653N00) using refrigeration
(which gives no upward bias--quite possibly this example of superior
German engineering is the most accurate). Has anybody tried to figure
out if these disparate techniques yield the same answer for the same
composition of gas
==============
raylopez99
does not care about history, only results matter. You are admitting
that Keeling (the old man, not his son) was a amateur, who did a lot of
pioneering work in the field of CO2 measurements, but has anybody since
taken his work to the next level? Or are they too busy lobbying and
talking to themselves, like on this newsgroup(think)? I'm talking
about solving problems such as Urban CO2 Island effect (yes, it does
exist, like UHI, as some cities show CO2 levels during rush hour close
to the 800 ppm that is nearly toxic); calibrating disparate
instruments; accounting for the different CO2 instruments out there
(and why they are different) (e.g., " some are using gas trapped in a
bottle; some are using spectrometers calibrated in a bizarre manner
(the Issyk-Kul (ISK242N00) station, apparently using some theoritical
calculation that ignores ground based CO2 and uses the sun as a
reference point); some using a chemical desiccant (Alligator Island);
some like the German station Neuglobsow (NGL653N00) using
year about whether it really matters, outside the laboratory; why, if
CO2 matters, CO2 is not taken up more by plants, plankton, etc
(negative feedback); and, if you've read this far --and you probably
shouldn't if you believe Owl's theory that I'm just a troll-- (I am,
but a honest troll who raises good points, not a polemic hack like most
AGW advocates in this newsgroup), my favorite theory (or rather,
hypothesis, sorry Lloyd Parker the epistimologist): that GW is merely
a function of the randomly occuring El Nino Cycle (and not the other
way around, which is conventional 'wisdom', such as it is, with AGW
fanantics). Since 1980 we've unfortunately had more El Nino's than
before. It might soon change, we have to just wait and see.
Besides, nothing we can do about GW, anymore than the still large
"Ozone Hole", except pray and put on more sunblock. So don't worry
about it.
Dr. Bill--oh no!--did you ever disclose who'se funding you? I raised
the question at Wikipedia on your vanity page there, but never got a
good answer. Who'se lining your pockets, GreenPeace? The Green lobby,
which has a lobbying budget something like 10x that of ExxonMobil?
Difficult questions to answer, better to duck them with some oblique
insider's reference to some obscure journal article.
RL
Coby Beck
> Idiot CB--I found the link that proves my point, go here. It was
> Neuglobsow.
That's Mr. Idiot to you, Ray. Show some respect.
Thanks for the link, you are a riot! Better than a trip to Magic Mountain.
You make a false claim, I ask you for a reference, and the "proof" you
provide is a link to an earlier usenet thread in which you yourself make the
identical false claim and are soundly spanked for it! It truly does not get
better than that...
> Seems we are going in circles, like the movie Groundhog
> Day.
Indeed. Hence my comment about you always being shown the point, often
acknowledging it, and yet never accepting it.
> Why not give it a rest and stop posting to my stuff?
I don't do it for you, don't flatter yourself. It is important to identify
misinformation as such because this is a public (and archived) forum read by
some who are in fact capable of learning.
here is a cleaner link to the same thread:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.environment/browse_frm/thread/3964c603ca065cb0/
anyone not familiar with Ray and his self awarded Nobel prizes can read this
and see him not learning exactly the same material he is not learning in
this thread.
Coby Beck
> Thanks Dr. Bill for that historical survey. Nice history, but society
> does not care about history, only results matter. You are admitting
> that Keeling (the old man, not his son) was a amateur, who did a lot of
> pioneering work in the field of CO2 measurements, but has anybody since
> taken his work to the next level?
No Ray, no one has even thought about it since Keeling made that one in his
garage. In fact all the new stations just have cell phone links to Mauna
Loa and record whatever the readings there are.
> Or are they too busy lobbying and
> talking to themselves, like on this newsgroup(think)? I'm talking
> about solving problems such as Urban CO2 Island effect (yes, it does
> exist, like UHI, as some cities show CO2 levels during rush hour close
> to the 800 ppm that is nearly toxic)
Nice catch, Ray. I emailed the administrator in the South Pole station and
advised him to avoid taking measurements during rush-hour. Suffice it to
say that their graph (below) will have to be revised.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/spo121e_thrudc04.pdf
> calibrating disparate
> instruments; accounting for the different CO2 instruments out there
> (and why they are different) (e.g., " some are using gas trapped in a
> bottle; some are using spectrometers calibrated in a bizarre manner
> (the Issyk-Kul (ISK242N00) station, apparently using some theoritical
> calculation that ignores ground based CO2 and uses the sun as a
> reference point); some using a chemical desiccant (Alligator Island);
> some like the German station Neuglobsow (NGL653N00) using
> refrigeration");
You keep switching from complaining they are all the same flawed insturment
to complianing they are all different, make up your mind which it is, which
problem that implies and which solution noone but you can come up with so we
can deal with it. Hurry, the world's economy is crumbling as we speak from
the mere mention of emmissions reduction.
> why CO2 even matters (recall the debate earlier this
> year about whether it really matters, outside the laboratory; why, if
> CO2 matters, CO2 is not taken up more by plants, plankton, etc
> (negative feedback);
Ray, you are a crackpot. Coming here and making crap up and refusing to
learn from the patient answers you get is not "a debate", and not anything
worth recalling.
> and, if you've read this far --and you probably
> shouldn't if you believe Owl's theory that I'm just a troll-- (I am,
> but a honest troll who raises good points,
No. Not honest. No good points.
w...@bas.ac.uk
>if you've read this far --and you probably
>shouldn't if you believe Owl's theory that I'm just a troll--
I skim. Owl makes sense.
>did you ever disclose who'se funding you? I raised
>the question at Wikipedia on your vanity page there, but never got a
>good answer.
If you mean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_M._Connolley#From_RL
that gives me the chance to say "what part of No didn't you understand?"
>Difficult questions to answer, better to duck them with some oblique
>insider's reference to some obscure journal article.
My, you're getting wordy. I prefer precision and conciseness, and you
don' get much better than "No".
raylopez99
Coby Beck wrote:
> "raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1121201554....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Thanks Dr. Bill for that historical survey. Nice history, but society
> > does not care about history, only results matter. You are admitting
> > that Keeling (the old man, not his son) was a amateur, who did a lot of
> > pioneering work in the field of CO2 measurements, but has anybody since
> > taken his work to the next level?
>
> No Ray, no one has even thought about it since Keeling made that one in his
> garage. In fact all the new stations just have cell phone links to Mauna
> Loa and record whatever the readings there are.
>
I'll take that as an admission that you don't know, smart-arse.
> > Or are they too busy lobbying and
> > talking to themselves, like on this newsgroup(think)? I'm talking
> > about solving problems such as Urban CO2 Island effect (yes, it does
> > exist, like UHI, as some cities show CO2 levels during rush hour close
> > to the 800 ppm that is nearly toxic)
>
> Nice catch, Ray. I emailed the administrator in the South Pole station and
> advised him to avoid taking measurements during rush-hour. Suffice it to
> say that their graph (below) will have to be revised.
>
> http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/spo121e_thrudc04.pdf
>
Yes, and you note the graph does not start at "zero", so in fact since
1958 we've had a mere 10% increase in CO2. Nothing to stop the world
over (literally).
> > calibrating disparate
> > instruments; accounting for the different CO2 instruments out there
> > (and why they are different) (e.g., " some are using gas trapped in a
> > bottle; some are using spectrometers calibrated in a bizarre manner
> > (the Issyk-Kul (ISK242N00) station, apparently using some theoritical
> > calculation that ignores ground based CO2 and uses the sun as a
> > reference point); some using a chemical desiccant (Alligator Island);
> > some like the German station Neuglobsow (NGL653N00) using
> > refrigeration");
>
> You keep switching from complaining they are all the same flawed insturment
> to complianing they are all different, make up your mind which it is, which
> problem that implies and which solution noone but you can come up with so we
> can deal with it. Hurry, the world's economy is crumbling as we speak from
> the mere mention of emmissions reduction.
More sarcasim from an idiot. I am making the point that the
instruments may be flawed. In fact, all these different groups
probably are not measuring apples and oranges, but a study (funded by
somebody other than the Green Lobby, obviously) needs to be done.
>
> > why CO2 even matters (recall the debate earlier this
> > year about whether it really matters, outside the laboratory; why, if
> > CO2 matters, CO2 is not taken up more by plants, plankton, etc
> > (negative feedback);
>
> Ray, you are a crackpot. Coming here and making crap up and refusing to
> learn from the patient answers you get is not "a debate", and not anything
> worth recalling.
>
You have a closed mind, like the closed order equation (Arrhenius) that
predicts runway CO2 production. Time to update your software.
> > and, if you've read this far --and you probably
> > shouldn't if you believe Owl's theory that I'm just a troll-- (I am,
> > but a honest troll who raises good points,
>
> No. Not honest. No good points.
>
>
Good points, honest, sceptical because I'm not wet behind the ears like
you. I've seen so-called Received Wisdom break down under close
scrutiny. Read the book "Einstein's Luck" for a flavor.
RL
"Further research is needed before we stop the world in response to
Eco-Nut predictions of runaway Global Warming" <---this is going to be
my new sig line.
Coby Beck
>
>
> Coby Beck wrote:
>> "raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1121201554....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Thanks Dr. Bill for that historical survey. Nice history, but society
>> > does not care about history, only results matter. You are admitting
>> > that Keeling (the old man, not his son) was a amateur, who did a lot of
>> > pioneering work in the field of CO2 measurements, but has anybody since
>> > taken his work to the next level?
>>
>> No Ray, no one has even thought about it since Keeling made that one in
>> his
>> garage. In fact all the new stations just have cell phone links to Mauna
>> Loa and record whatever the readings there are.
>>
>
> I'll take that as an admission that you don't know, smart-arse.
By all means. You will also take that to mean that no one knows, which of
course will imply to you that the case for GW is completely bogus.
>> > Or are they too busy lobbying and
>> > talking to themselves, like on this newsgroup(think)? I'm talking
>> > about solving problems such as Urban CO2 Island effect (yes, it does
>> > exist, like UHI, as some cities show CO2 levels during rush hour close
>> > to the 800 ppm that is nearly toxic)
>>
>> Nice catch, Ray. I emailed the administrator in the South Pole station
>> and
>> advised him to avoid taking measurements during rush-hour. Suffice it to
>> say that their graph (below) will have to be revised.
>>
>> http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/spo121e_thrudc04.pdf
>>
>
> Yes, and you note the graph does not start at "zero", so in fact since
> 1958 we've had a mere 10% increase in CO2. Nothing to stop the world
> over (literally).
313ppm in 1957, 375ppm in 2004 = 19.8% increase. How you came up with 10 is
another great mystery of climate science. This is now 34% higher than
pre-industrial levels and it is 25% higher than it has ever been in the last
400K years. And it is rising faster than it has ever risen in the past
million years at least.
>> > calibrating disparate
>> > instruments; accounting for the different CO2 instruments out there
>> > (and why they are different) (e.g., " some are using gas trapped in a
>> > bottle; some are using spectrometers calibrated in a bizarre manner
>> > (the Issyk-Kul (ISK242N00) station, apparently using some theoritical
>> > calculation that ignores ground based CO2 and uses the sun as a
>> > reference point); some using a chemical desiccant (Alligator Island);
>> > some like the German station Neuglobsow (NGL653N00) using
>> > refrigeration");
>>
>> You keep switching from complaining they are all the same flawed
>> insturment
>> to complianing they are all different, make up your mind which it is,
>> which
>> problem that implies and which solution noone but you can come up with so
>> we
>> can deal with it. Hurry, the world's economy is crumbling as we speak
>> from
>> the mere mention of emmissions reduction.
>
> More sarcasim from an idiot. I am making the point that the
> instruments may be flawed. In fact, all these different groups
> probably are not measuring apples and oranges, but a study (funded by
> somebody other than the Green Lobby, obviously) needs to be done.
No, you're not making any point whatsoever. You're just spouting a bunch of
ignorant "what if"'s and extrapolating your own lack of knowledge to the
whole climate research community. Why are you calling for a study? You
ignore every study that you are referred to, what difference would one more
make to you?
>> > and, if you've read this far --and you probably
>> > shouldn't if you believe Owl's theory that I'm just a troll-- (I am,
>> > but a honest troll who raises good points,
>>
>> No. Not honest. No good points.
>
> Good points, honest, sceptical because I'm not wet behind the ears like
> you.
No. Not good. Not honest.
Lloyd Parker
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Idiot CB--I found the link that proves my point, go here. It was
>Neuglobsow. Seems we are going in circles, like the movie Groundhog
>Day. Why not give it a rest and stop posting to my stuff?
>
>RL
>:
>
>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.environment/browse_frm/thread/3964c
603ca065cb0/3360fe34a7eea6cc?q=co2+measuring+stations+raylopez99&rnum=1&hl=e
n#3360fe34a7eea6cc
>
>
>2) The "mixing" is not that pronounced. For example note the sample
>from Neuglobsow (NGL653N00). Why is it not a 'straight-line sloping
>upwards' like the other stations?
>
You mean statements like this?
"The Federal Environmental Agency's (FEA) measuring stations were put into
operation in the new Laender ten years ago. Efficient stations whose staff
are involved in international measuring programs have been running since
1992 in Neuglobsow (Brandenburg), Zingst (Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania),
and Schmücke (Thuringia). "The state of the environment in the new Laender
has improved quite impressively over the last ten years", said Prof. Dr.
Andreas Troge, President of the Federal Environmental Agency, at the
festivities held on 27 July 2002 in Neuglobsow. The success achieved in air
quality management is particularly striking. Pollutant emissions have sunk
large scale here since the opening of the Wall and have adjusted to the low
levels in the old Laender. However, Troge warned that "emissions of
pollutants are still too high". The FEA measuring stations have registered
an increase in concentrations of climate-damaging carbon dioxide (CO2) in
the atmosphere even though CO2 emissions are on the decline in Germany."
Note "increase in concentrations of CO2" above?
Lloyd Parker
Better put new batteries in your calculator. 360-280/280 <> 10.
>
>> > calibrating disparate
>> > instruments; accounting for the different CO2 instruments out there
>> > (and why they are different) (e.g., " some are using gas trapped in a
>> > bottle; some are using spectrometers calibrated in a bizarre manner
>> > (the Issyk-Kul (ISK242N00) station, apparently using some theoritical
>> > calculation that ignores ground based CO2 and uses the sun as a
>> > reference point); some using a chemical desiccant (Alligator Island);
>> > some like the German station Neuglobsow (NGL653N00) using
>> > refrigeration");
>>
>> You keep switching from complaining they are all the same flawed
insturment
>> to complianing they are all different, make up your mind which it is,
which
>> problem that implies and which solution noone but you can come up with so
we
>> can deal with it. Hurry, the world's economy is crumbling as we speak
from
>> the mere mention of emmissions reduction.
>
>More sarcasim from an idiot. I am making the point that the
>instruments may be flawed.
Sure, and all our measuring sticks might be contracting a little each year.
> In fact, all these different groups
>probably are not measuring apples and oranges, but a study (funded by
>somebody other than the Green Lobby, obviously) needs to be done.
Still refusing to read the literature, eh Ray?
>
>
>>
>> > why CO2 even matters (recall the debate earlier this
>> > year about whether it really matters, outside the laboratory; why, if
>> > CO2 matters, CO2 is not taken up more by plants, plankton, etc
>> > (negative feedback);
>>
>> Ray, you are a crackpot. Coming here and making crap up and refusing to
>> learn from the patient answers you get is not "a debate", and not
anything
>> worth recalling.
>>
>
>You have a closed mind,
LOL! You're the one who refuses to read the literature.
>like the closed order equation (Arrhenius) that
>predicts runway CO2 production. Time to update your software.
>
>
>> > and, if you've read this far --and you probably
>> > shouldn't if you believe Owl's theory that I'm just a troll-- (I am,
>> > but a honest troll who raises good points,
>>
>> No. Not honest. No good points.
>>
>>
>
>Good points, honest, sceptical because I'm not wet behind the ears like
>you. I've seen so-called Received Wisdom break down under close
>scrutiny.
Yeah, sure.
> Read the book "Einstein's Luck" for a flavor.
Read the National Academy of Sciences report for a clue.