Sceptic Links Discussion

[jethro]

Good morning Eli and welcome.

May I begin by saying I am a little surprised by your appearance, there have been many contentious issues discussed here, so I am puzzled as to why you have chosen this particular topic to jump into the fray. I have to say, having visited your blog and read your comments upon Beck, I find it entirely plausible that your post here actually consists of cut&pasted comments, this leads me to wonder if it is in fact you, or an impostor.

Getting back to the Beck paper; I find your cursory dismissal of such a momentous paper to be misguided. Climate change and its’ ramifications are potentially enormous and arguably mankind may be facing its’ greatest challenges to date. Surely this being the case, every possible aspect should be examined in minute detail, not dismissed ad lib?

The whole foundation of our understanding of AGW, the corner stone of the IPCC and their predictions, recommendations and advice is based on Co2 emissions. If there is any room for doubt, any information which can add to their understanding, then does it not strike you as being rather odd for them to have excluded it in their research?

You argue that the old methods used for obtaining the data is invalid because of the equipment and methods used, producing a large error margin; if this error margin is known and calculable as you say, then this could be applied retrospectively to the data, could it not? Surely it is not beyond the realms of modern day science and technology to make again the equipment used in the 1800’s, it would be possible to replicate the tests of old in direct comparison with modern day equipment and decipher the precise discrepancies in any readings. There are other known instances where change of methods used, results in different readings, notably temperature readings, the marked step increase in temps when the equipment for reading changed, is remarkably similar to the marked step increase in Co2 readings when the equipment for measuring changed. This does not negate or mean the old temperature readings or methods used were inaccurate or invalid and can be dismissed, nor are they. So how can you apply that principle to historic Co2 measurements on those grounds?

My understanding of Beck’s work is he has looked at all of the data available not just some, as in the case of the IPCC. He has raised doubts, questions and concerns about our understanding of AGW and in my opinion, rightly so. Any cause for doubt should be the subject of intense scrutiny if the integrity of the IPCC and the scientific community are to be maintained. It is a dangerous, slippery slope to go down if science can be manipulated for financial or political gain. Its’ processes and procedures should be transparent not clouded by what one organization deems as relevant or irrelevant.

[Devonian]

My understanding of Beck’s work is he has looked at all of the data available not just some, as in the case of the IPCC. He has raised doubts, questions and concerns about our understanding of AGW and in my opinion, rightly so. Any cause for doubt should be the subject of intense scrutiny if the integrity of the IPCC and the scientific community are to be maintained. It is a dangerous, slippery slope to go down if science can be manipulated for financial or political gain. Its’ processes and procedures should be transparent not clouded by what one organization deems as relevant or irrelevant.

Why don't you want Beck's work scrutinised?

More importantly, Beck claims CO2 rose by 100ppm plus and then fell back again by 100ppm plus within a decade around the 1940's. No mechanism can explain this - for if one can why is CO2 rising atm? It's not just unexplainable, it's impossible!

So, surely it's more likely Beck (for the reason Eli gives - nice welcome to him btw) is wrong rather than he's right but what he claims is simply impossible?

Edited July 20, 2007 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

My problems with the IPCC paper remain the amount of 'doctoring' that the paper underwent to become 'acceptable ' to the likes of USA, Australia, India and China. The to-ing and fro-ing this forces means that most of the data is old (in terms of the rate of change of both data and 'the rate of change') and important areas are omitted completely (Antarctic ablation, northern permafrost melt and subsequent wetland drainage,particulate pollution and its impact on rainfall patterns/distribution/black snow).

At the same time the paper was being published NASA was showing how the 'impossible' was now happening in Antartica (from data amassed 2 years previous) so how can you put faith in the paper when the goal posts are not only changing rapidly but being hidden completely by non compliant nations?

[Devonian]

My problems with the IPCC paper remain the amount of 'doctoring' that the paper underwent to become 'acceptable ' to the likes of USA, Australia, India and China. The to-ing and fro-ing this forces means that most of the data is old (in terms of the rate of change of both data and 'the rate of change') and important areas are omitted completely (Antarctic ablation, northern permafrost melt and subsequent wetland drainage,particulate pollution and its impact on rainfall patterns/distribution/black snow).

At the same time the paper was being published NASA was showing how the 'impossible' was now happening in Antartica (from data amassed 2 years previous) so how can you put faith in the paper when the goal posts are not only changing rapidly but being hidden completely by non compliant nations?

Indeed, if anything the IPCC AR4 has been watered down rather than exaggerated.

[jethro]

Why don't you want Beck's work scrutinised?

More importantly, Beck claims CO2 rose by 100ppm plus and then fell back again by 100ppm plus within a decade around the 1940's. No mechanism can explain this - for if one can why is CO2 rising atm? It's not just unexplainable, it's impossible!

So, surely it's more likely Beck (for the reason Eli gives - nice welcome to him btw) is wrong rather than he's right but what he claims is simply impossible?

Good morning Dev, I refer to my above post where I say "every possible aspect should be examined in minute detail, not dismissed ad lib" and "any cause for doubt should be the subject of intense scrutiny"; both of these statements do, I believe invite, endorse and ask for scrutiny.

In the words of Mr. Beck himself:" Viewing from scientific point we have to evaluate, verify and falsify both lines and join them together without excluding one or both, a priori at the base laws of nature. In that sense I appreciate your comments and critics and your contributions to establish real truth".

All of that being said, I do not believe Eli Rabett or you or I to be adequately qualified to apply the level of scrutiny required. My concerns focus upon the public belief that if Eli Rabett say's it is so, then it must be right. It is publicity seeking tittle-tattle which has distorted the science of Climate Change, wholesale. If you or I or indeed Mr. Rabett said we don't think this to be accurate but here's how we can find out, or let's wait until it has been explored, tested, verified further then I wouldn't take issue. The historic levels of Co2 are so important to the very basics of the AGW theory and the integrity of the IPCC that they shouldn't be cursorily dismissed by anybody, least of all by someone with a prominent, public persona. You routinely and rigorously defend the IPCC and hold them up as the pinacle against which all climate change science should be judged, surely you would prefer their integrity to be unimpeachable? Why do you not want that integrity tested?

[Devonian]

Good morning Dev, I refer to my above post where I say "every possible aspect should be examined in minute detail, not dismissed ad lib" and "any cause for doubt should be the subject of intense scrutiny"; both of these statements do, I believe invite, endorse and ask for scrutiny.

In the words of Mr. Beck himself:" Viewing from scientific point we have to evaluate, verify and falsify both lines and join them together without excluding one or both, a priori at the base laws of nature. In that sense I appreciate your comments and critics and your contributions to establish real truth".

All of that being said, I do not believe Eli Rabett or you or I to be adequately qualified to apply the level of scrutiny required.

Oh indeed I'm not. Eli on the other hand is a university proff in a relevant field - he knows his stuff. And, while I'm being honest, what about you?

My concerns focus upon the public belief that if Eli Rabett say's it is so, then it must be right.

If it been rigorously tested and makes sense it's right, actually.

It is publicity seeking tittle-tattle which has distorted the science of Climate Change, wholesale.

You like to dismiss as tittle-tattle dont you :huh:

If you or I or indeed Mr. Rabett said we don't think this to be accurate but here's how we can find out, or let's wait until it has been explored, tested, verified further then I wouldn't take issue. The historic levels of Co2 are so important to the very basics of the AGW theory and the integrity of the IPCC that they shouldn't be cursorily dismissed by anybody, least of all by someone with a prominent, public persona. You routinely and rigorously defend the IPCC and hold them up as the pinacle against which all climate change science should be judged, surely you would prefer their integrity to be unimpeachable? Why do you not want that integrity tested?

What makes E.G. Beck qualified to cursorily dismiss the work of many other scientists who've actually done sampling of atmospheric CO2?

Again, please explain any mechanism whereby 100ppm of CO2 can appear and disappear in a decade. I say again, it's impossible!

..

Edited July 20, 2007 by Devonian

[Essan]

The other question Beck ignores is "why?"

We know we are pumping out huge amounts of CO2 today - and all other things being equal, we would expect this to result in a steady increase in atmospheric concentrations. So why, in the past, when much less CO2 was being produced by anthropogenic processes, were there larger quantities than we see today? Where did it all come from?

And the fact that it then suddenly seems to have disappeared again does suggest an error in either recording the data or in interpreting the data.

[egb]

Mr. Eli Rabett,

nice reading, your lines for persons who like personal affronts with poor scientifical content.

You do not know me, you have not read my paper in E&E nor my monograph " History of CO2 gas analysis" which is the basis of the E&E paper but you continue to prove in several blogs that I am an amateur and I am totally wrong and I am writing bullonions. The applause of your fans is considerable.

I notice that you have severe deficits in basic chemistry.

So lets help you with some facts.

Here you will find the most important sources of my work:( but pay attention, it´s the devils work and it could NOT be)

http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm

I am sorry that you have to read a lot of German papers, several French and only some in English.

History of gas analysis is mainly a european history, especially a German.

here you will find my latest presentations at Berlin and Leiden (Netherlands) with facts not included in my E&E paper :

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/daten/ber...07/berlin1e.htm

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/daten/lei...07/leiden1e.htm.

Eating your lines here:

"There are a huge number of problems with atmospheric CO2 measurements between 1850 and ~1960 when Keeling introduced IR absorption based instrumentation. They can be summarized as not paying attention to detail. Paying attention to detail was Keeling's strength."

I agree with firtst line but they measured throughout the world since 1812 (Thenard ) and the problems were solved by mainly french and german scientists. Still Theodore de Saussure in 1820 knew about all important characteristics of CO₂ in air: diurnal and seasonal variation, absorption by humidity, influences by vegetation, soil respiration, combustion and lower level on higher mountains.

Keeling stated erroneously in his 19th century evaluation paper in 1986 that nobody before him has measured these characteristics properly.

You wrote:

"Let's start from the beginning. You first have to understand and thoroughly characterize the location where you are making the measurements. This involves taking measurements at all times of day and year and correlating with winds, vegatation and many other things. "

I agree, therfor I have investigated in detail (in my monograph) locations, data, persons, errors and you forgot: methods! So I have gathered this information in special detail for more than 60 data sets. From more than 390 papers I selected 138 datasets as OK and dozends as inacceptable. Dozends show regular, daily sampling with carefully calibration and recording conditions.

You wrote:

"Keeling, for example, found that when the winds blew from LA to La Jolla, his measurements were higher. He also found effects from the respiration of the vegatation at different times of day. There are some areas which are totally inappropriate. Paris is one, Essen another. One of my posts links to a CO2 measurement done while moving through the Ruhr. You can easily get high measurements."

These things are known for 180 years. My 138 selected, evaluated data sets include only 2-3 measurements in towns because of their controlled and excellent calibration and completness of records.

Your next lines describe the very complicated physical IR method reinvented by Keeling and first used by

Heine a coworker of Konrad Roentgen in 1882. The wet chemical methods which was 100 years standard in natural science were much faster and not such complicated than the Keeling method. In the 50s Keeling had an error of about 1-4% up to 1970 that was worse than the best chemical analysers in 1920 used by Lundegardh having 1% error. These calibration gas and pump errors are confirmed in literature.Today the NDIR method is about 5-10 times more accurate as the old wet chemical methods.

"Then, of course, you have to sample the air. The IR method allows you to continuously sample, but before that you had to grab a sample by sucking it into something. This is very tricky, and of course there are any number of dumb ways of doing this of which Mr. Roland Ploennige's playing the Fronselius trombone has to be the worst. Compare this with the careful way that Keeling describes how the gathered grab samples at the same link. Preparation of the sample volumes and their storage is also vital. For example, Keeling found that exposure of the glass bulbs he used was using to light for a couple of weeks produced an artifact. Of course, you want the largest possible volume to minimize surface effects and give you material to work with."

You next lines reveal your chemical skills:

"Then you need a method. Beck is delusional about the wet chemistry methods. At best they are a few percent in the hands of an expert, but they easily can give bad readings if not done perfectly. The IR method has all the advantages of an instrumental measurement. Since readings can be taken frequently, it is easy to build a statistical distribution that characterizes each sample. The titrations take a long time and require much more sampled material so one cannot get nearly the number of measurements from a single grab sample."

Now you out yourself as a chemical amateur.

Titration was part of the Pettenkofer method which was standard for 100 years from 1857 to 1960. all CO2 relevant nobel awards and scientific knowledge was done with this gas analyser. Every educated person round the world has learned facts of photosynthesis, respiration or nutrition scienece at schools and universities. The Basics of BMR or room hygiene (Pettenkofer number is still valid today, measured in 1857!)

Now you out yourself as a chemical amateur.

Titration was part of the Pettenkofer method which was standard for 100 years from 1857 to 1960. all CO2 relevant nobel awards and scientific knowledge was done with this gas analyser. Every educated person round the world has learned facts of photosynthesis, respiration or nutrition scienece at schools and universities. The Basics of BMR or room hygiene (Pettenkofer number) is still valid today, measured in 1857 and 1910!)

Every analytical laboratory uses titration as a accurate and fast method.

Now to the Scandinavian network in the 50s.

They measured with the Pettenkofer variant of the Nobel Awardist A. Krogh 1920. Sampling irregulary on different hours, days or weeks by different persons they sent the samples from 19 stations to 2 laboratories resulting in horrible seasonal variations. The gas analyser was Ok with 2-3% accuracy but the methodical errors and such by transport are large.

You write:

"Calibration is, of course the key. Several of Beck's cited references do not mention how they calibrated their measurements. To make matters worse, you want to calibrate with mixtures that you know the concentration of the CO2 in as exactly as possible and making such mixtures at the ppm level, and maintaining them is a magical art as anyone who has tried it knows. In the instrumental system, calibrations are done interleaved with the measurements, think about how you would do this with a titration."

I agree with your first line. Therfor I selected out of 270 papers 138 series with acceptable calibration. Since 1857 all measurements are inter-calibrated until 1961.

So we come to the end:

Despite all your arguments against my work, please give an explanation to the following graph. It shows the temperatuer fluctuation in Antarctica out of high precision ice core records (Schneider et al. 2006) not used by the IPCC.

Now we come to the end:

Despite all your arguments against my work, please give an explanation to the following graph. It shows the temperatuer fluctuation in Antarctica out of high precision ice core records (Schneider et al. 2006) not used by the IPCC.

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/daten/icecore_200-rA4.gif

I am awaiting your comments, why my CO2 reconstructions fits and IPCCs (keelings) not!

Ernst Beck

Merian-Schule Freiburg

Dep. Biotechnology and Nutrition Science

Germany

[Devonian]

Ernst, thank you for that post.

I have some questions for you.

1) I had thought you were claiming to have reconstructed 'the real CO2 contour' (from you 'doc file, first link), now I see in your latest presentation (Berlin) a very similar graph is titled 'CO2 1812-1961 NH'. So, to clarify, is your graph for the Northern Hemisphere only? Have you reconstructed global averaged CO2, or are all your graphs NH only?

2) In either of your graphs CO2 concentration rises by about 100ppm and then falls back 100ppm in a decade around the 1940s. What is the mechanism for the removal of that 100ppm of CO2? Indeed, what possible planetary mechanism could remove such a huge quantity of Co2 so fast then, but somehow 'know' not to not removed the 100ppm or so humanity has added over a somewhat longer time period up to the present? Or, back to question 1, is this just the Northern hemisphere?

Edited July 20, 2007 by Devonian

[jethro]

Mr. Beck,

Hello and welcome.

Thank you for responding in this forum with such an informative post. I await Mr. Rabett's response with interest.

Edited July 20, 2007 by jethro

[Iceberg]

Mr Beck what criteria did you use to as you say.

" From more than 390 papers I selected 138 datasets as OK and dozends as inacceptable. Dozends show regular, daily sampling with carefully calibration and recording conditions"

You must have had fairly well thought out and described methods, otherwise you open yourself to the claim of only using data which might support your hypothesis.?

Matt

[Admiral_Bobski]

I'm back!

And I'd like to thank Dr Beck for his detailed post and links, and for taking the time out of his no doubt busy schedule to post on this board - plenty more for us all to read through! I have not yet had a chance to look at any of the linked items (up to my neck in work at the moment), but I hope to catch up with it all in the next week or so.

I shall return

CB

[egb]

Dear Devonian,

the exponential CO2 curve going continuously from a low pre-industrial value of about 280/290 ppm to the 380 ppm today is wrong. I reconstructed the true ( directly measured) CO2 variation in northern hemisphere (NH) (from 138 yearly averages). The historical data I have inspected from the southern hemisphere e.g. by the several French Antarctica expeditions around 1900 or the very high measurements in 1941 by Lockart et al. in West Base Antarctica I have rejected and not used because of systematical errors ( approx. 20 ppm absorption in H2SO4) and therefor too low values in case of the French scientists and in both cases no calibration possibilities against other.

Your second question comes out of a misinterpretation. Today I regret in presenting an envelope countour in my paper. It would have been better having presented the point cloud as in the latest Leiden presentation http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/daten/lei...07/leiden1e.htm slide 4b. The whole peak around 1942 is reconstructed out of 41 yearly averages. I am not able the reasearch more values to get a better peak resolution.

Of course we have not a rise of 100 ppm in 1 year.

The whole peak built up and collapsed within about 25 years. It rose within the 30s and fell down in the 40s/50s. The absolute height cannot be determined exactly because of lacking more data.

But the data clearly shows: there was a peak and it fits to global phenomenes especially seen in northern hemisphere (NH) at that time (temperature in NH) and Antarctica see the Schneider at al. graph in Antarctica.

regards

Ernst

Ernst, thank you for that post.

I have some questions for you.

1) I had thought you were claiming to have reconstructed 'the real CO2 contour' (from you 'doc file, first link), now I see in your latest presentation (Berlin) a very similar graph is titled 'CO2 1812-1961 NH'. So, to clarify, is your graph for the Northern Hemisphere only? Have you reconstructed global averaged CO2, or are all your graphs NH only?

2) In either of your graphs CO2 concentration rises by about 100ppm and then falls back 100ppm in a decade around the 1940s. What is the mechanism for the removal of that 100ppm of CO2? Indeed, what possible planetary mechanism could remove such a huge quantity of Co2 so fast then, but somehow 'know' not to not removed the 100ppm or so humanity has added over a somewhat longer time period up to the present? Or, back to question 1, is this just the Northern hemisphere?

[Gray-Wolf]

We must remeber that CO2 sinks can 'come and go' In Brazil in the early 80's it was noted that the rainforest was absorbing more CO2 than predicted. On closer investigation it was found that their was a massive expansion in Liana's in the forest (Tarzan vines or 'Swiss Cheese plants) which effectively strangle their hosts) so the 'blip' was really an indication of much worse to come as the top cannopy is choked to death. I suspect that many anomalous data sets would be found to contain a similar short-term 'glitch' in the upward trnds for CO2 concentration (Esp. if they dissappear as quickly as they arise).

All in all these anomalies reinforce;

how little we know of the interconnected response systems on the planet,

That things are getting much, much worse

[egb]

if we take a look on the CO2 variations though the times we know the facts are:

1. Diurnal variation due to respiration and phostosynthesis and dissolving in water corresponding to temperature

2. Seasonal variation

3. Exponential rising within hundreds /thousands of years (IPCC)

4. 110 thousand years cycling within 1 Million years (glacial/interglacial)

5. Temperatur independend fluctuation within 600 Million years (phaneroic)

So it why it is not possible to fluctuate in dozends or hundreds of years as temperature or other parameters?

My explanation is that oceans produce these CO2 peaks I detected by deep sea upwelling CO2. Please remember that 75% of volcanoes are emitting in deep sea and we do not know about it. So the actual C- models are not more than computer games.

Furtheron forests act as CO2 emitters if it is dry. IPCC ice core records are some type of artefacts because one of possible not investigated causes are psycrophilic bacteria who live in the ice had used enclosed CO2 as a C-source taking energy from oxidizing available minerals. We found all sorts of possible bacteria and archaea in the ice. This had not been investigated up to today.

So older ice core records display only a fraction of CO2. Decompression losses by drilling and processing did the rest.

Ernst

We must remeber that CO2 sinks can 'come and go' In Brazil in the early 80's it was noted that the rainforest was absorbing more CO2 than predicted. On closer investigation it was found that their was a massive expansion in Liana's in the forest (Tarzan vines or 'Swiss Cheese plants) which effectively strangle their hosts) so the 'blip' was really an indication of much worse to come as the top cannopy is choked to death. I suspect that many anomalous data sets would be found to contain a similar short-term 'glitch' in the upward trnds for CO2 concentration (Esp. if they dissappear as quickly as they arise).

All in all these anomalies reinforce;

how little we know of the interconnected response systems on the planet,

That things are getting much, much worse

[Iceberg]

egb, I find your thoughts rather difficult to comprehend.

Your not really answered any of the questions put to you, yet !.

What criteria have you used to select or disgard stations ?.

What evidence do you have that the ocean suddenly emits so much more or less CO2.?

Surely you can study the signature of the CO2 to determine it's origins and show the results.?

[Admiral_Bobski]

egb, I find your thoughts rather difficult to comprehend.

Your not really answered any of the questions put to you, yet !.

What criteria have you used to select or disgard stations ?.

What evidence do you have that the ocean suddenly emits so much more or less CO2.?

Surely you can study the signature of the CO2 to determine it's origins and show the results.?

What do you find so difficult to comprehend, Iceberg? Which questions has Dr Beck failed to answer?

You ask what criteria he uses, he says: "From more than 390 papers I selected 138 datasets as OK and dozends as inacceptable. Dozends show regular, daily sampling with carefully calibration and recording conditions".

Well, the criteria, surely, would be 1) Regular sampling, 2) Careful Calibration, 3) Acceptable Recording Conditions. How is this answer inadequate?

What evidence is there that the oceans can emit variable amounts of CO₂? Well, Dr Beck says "Please remember that 75% of volcanoes are emitting in deep sea and we do not know about it."

Bear in mind this extract from New Scientist (9th July 2007): "The true extent to which the ocean bed is dotted with volcanoes has been revealed by researchers who have counted 201,055 underwater cones. This is over 10 times more than have been found before. The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 metres over the sea bed."

That's a lot of volcanoes, so variability in the amount of outgassing would seem to be well within the realms of possibility, wouldn't you agree?

CB

Edited July 22, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[jethro]

And there's this:

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/85/i21/8521news8.html

[Gray-Wolf]

And there's this:

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/85/i21/8521news8.html

Which would seem to put the supposedly 'stable' cathrites back onto the table..........

The other thing that is ringing bells about Ernst's study is the 2nd world war occurs around that time (and the increase in production......on a war footing....of many of the most polluting industries). If you think about the sudden increase in air travel (battle of Britain, Blitz, raising of Germany to the ground etc,etc) you can see how us naughty humans may have accounted for the blip.

[Iceberg]

Yes but what were his criteria, in science it's not as abstract as you claim "Well, the criteria, surely, would be 1) Regular sampling, 2) Careful Calibration, 3) Acceptable Recording Conditions. How is this answer inadequate?"

It should be 1) sampling taken at least 4 times a day 24/7 for example. or 2) Calibtrated to within 2ppm and checked professionally every 2 years or even not situation more than x miles from a specfic C02 emitter, either natural or manmade.

[Devonian]

What do you find so difficult to comprehend, Iceberg? Which questions has Dr Beck failed to answer?

You ask what criteria he uses, he says: "From more than 390 papers I selected 138 datasets as OK and dozends as inacceptable. Dozends show regular, daily sampling with carefully calibration and recording conditions".

Well, the criteria, surely, would be 1) Regular sampling, 2) Careful Calibration, 3) Acceptable Recording Conditions. How is this answer inadequate?

What evidence is there that the oceans can emit variable amounts of CO₂? Well, Dr Beck says "Please remember that 75% of volcanoes are emitting in deep sea and we do not know about it."

Bear in mind this extract from New Scientist (9th July 2007): "The true extent to which the ocean bed is dotted with volcanoes has been revealed by researchers who have counted 201,055 underwater cones. This is over 10 times more than have been found before. The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 metres over the sea bed."

That's a lot of volcanoes, so variability in the amount of outgassing would seem to be well within the realms of possibility, wouldn't you agree?

CB

I don't agree.

A sudden massive worldwide undersea vulcanism that we've missed that caused a rise in CO2 of 100ppm? C'mon, CB, you have my respect, but it's 'ice age now' nonsense! I'm all for debate but the idea that CO2 concs can rise by 100ppm and then fall back in little more than a decade IS nonsense.

I'm not university educated but I know enough geology to find myself quietly shuddering at what British Geological Survey people would be thinking at the suggestion of a massive peak of CO2 due to massive (but undetected) vulcanicity. Such a missive rise and then fall in vulcanicity would leave other clear signs - they are not there, this supposed massive vulcanicity simply did not happen.

Now, the above is problem enough. But...the real problem is where did all this supposed CO2 go and so rapidly? I'm afraid, and I'm sorry to say this, that question can only be answered by resort to pseudo science. The truth is that there is no way 100ppm of atmospheric CO2 can be sequestrated in little more than a decade, There is an excellent RealClimate article here to quote it "Such huge biospheric fluxes would leave an enormous 13C signal in the atmosphere. Nothing remotely like that is observed in tree ring cellulose data.". Clearly the biosphere can't cope with our emissions atm, yet we're supposed to accept id did in the past and far faster?

Now, I know I'm going to be jumped on by certain sceptics. But, while I can see how reasoned scepticism might find fault with AGW theory, resorting to this kind of stuff leaves the best sceptics in your wake.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I don't agree.

A sudden massive worldwide undersea vulcanism that we've missed that caused a rise in CO2 of 100ppm? C'mon, CB, you have my respect, but it's 'ice age now' nonsense! I'm all for debate but the idea that CO2 concs can rise by 100ppm and then fall back in little more than a decade IS nonsense.

If you recall the quote from New Scientist I posted above, there's an awful lot of volcanoes under the oceans - an estimated 3 million of them, most of which we've never seen (the number inferred by the number of volcanoes found recently in certain areas - "researchers...have counted 201,055 underwater cones"). Now, the two main effects of underwater vulcanism would be oceanic pollution (most relevant to this discussion being the CO₂ given off being dissolved in the water, which would then eventually reach the surface and be outgassed), and an increase in ocean temperatures (which is clearly observed, but attributed to ACC).

As for the speed at which this takes place, Dr Beck said that "The whole peak around 1942 is reconstructed out of 41 yearly averages", which means that "The whole peak built up and collapsed within about 25 years", which is slightly more than "little more than a decade."

There is much more to this paper than is being given credit, it doesn't sound entirely improbable, and I shall continue to look into it before reaching a conclusion - I don't think it should be dismissed in such a cavalier manner. I, personally, am not 100% convinced yet - I am, after all, a layman! - but I think it deserves further investigation.

CB

Yes but what were his criteria, in science it's not as abstract as you claim "Well, the criteria, surely, would be 1) Regular sampling, 2) Careful Calibration, 3) Acceptable Recording Conditions. How is this answer inadequate?"

It should be 1) sampling taken at least 4 times a day 24/7 for example. or 2) Calibtrated to within 2ppm and checked professionally every 2 years or even not situation more than x miles from a specfic C02 emitter, either natural or manmade.

Perhaps there is a more detailed explanation in the copious notes to which Dr Beck has linked - there's a lot there and I haven't had a chance to read through them yet - I shall start when I get a chance...

CB

Edited July 23, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Devonian]

If you recall the quote from New Scientist I posted above, there's an awful lot of volcanoes under the oceans - an estimated 3 million of them, most of which we've never seen (the number inferred by the number of volcanoes found recently in certain areas - "researchers...have counted 201,055 underwater cones"). Now, the two main effects of underwater vulcanism would be oceanic pollution (most relevant to this discussion being the CO₂ given off being dissolved in the water, which would then eventually reach the surface and be outgassed), and an increase in ocean temperatures (which is clearly observed, but attributed to ACC).

As for the speed at which this takes place, Dr Beck said that "The whole peak around 1942 is reconstructed out of 41 yearly averages", which means that "The whole peak built up and collapsed within about 25 years", which is slightly more than "little more than a decade".

There is much more to this paper than is being given credit, it doesn't sound entirely improbable, and I shall continue to look into it before reaching a conclusion - I don't think it should be dismissed in such a cavalier manner. I, personally, am not 100% convinced yet - I am, after all, a layman! - but I think it deserves further investigation.

CB

CB, people have done the maths. Again, the idea that undersea volcanoes can warm the oceans significantly is nonsense. It's a match warming a bath stuff. Now, I'm (despite what people say, will say) a fair man, I'd welcome someone going away, calculating the volumes of the oceans, coming back with a figure, then coming back with a figure for how much heat is required to warm them by, say, .5C. Fact is (and I use the word fact advisedly) fact is volcanoes simply can't be doing it. Again, let someone show me the figures

PS, this is not to be cavalier, it's to know a few basic impossibilities.

Edited July 23, 2007 by Devonian

[Osbourne One-Nil]

According to Encarta (so it must be right) the volume of the Earth's oceans is 329 million cubic miles, 1370 million cubic kilometers, or about the same amount of water as Mrs OON boils to make one cup of her very bad tea.

Now, I don't know what difference water pressure has, but to heat one kg of water by 1ºC takes 4.187 kilojoules, so if one cubic km of ocean weighs 1 million kgs, then the oceans weigh 1370 trillion kgs so to raise its temperature 1ºC would take 5736 trillion kilojoules.

I may be wrong, but at least I've shown my working out.

[Devonian]

According to Encarta (so it must be right) the volume of the Earth's oceans is 329 million cubic miles, 1370 million cubic kilometers, or about the same amount of water as Mrs OON boils to make one cup of her very bad tea.

Now, I don't know what difference water pressure has, but to heat one kg of water by 1ºC takes 4.187 kilojoules, so if one cubic km of ocean weighs 1 million kgs, then the oceans weigh 1370 trillion kgs so to raise its temperature 1ºC would take 5769 trillion kilojoules.

I may be wrong, but at least I've shown my working out.

Excellent stuff OON!

Now we need heat flow. I happen to know a site - http://geophysics.ou.edu/geomechanics/note...l_heat_flow.htm "the average global heat flow is only about 0.075 Watts/meter2" however, average solar radiation is 342wm2. So, geothermal energy flow is miniscule by comparison to solar.

Indeed, we all know where the energy to power weather (if that we don't all agree how that energy is moved about) comes from - and it's not below our feet.

No, the oceans are not warming due to undersea volcanoes, and undersea volcanoes did not produce a sudden 100ppm CO2 spike in the last century.

Edited July 23, 2007 by Devonian