Sceptic Links Discussion

[Iceberg]

I think most of the volcanism under water comes from ocean ridges (where the plates are moving away forming new ocean floors or from Island arc scenario's).

[Admiral_Bobski]

Devonian:

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.

People have done the maths, but only based on the number of known volcanoes - this New Scientist article is new...very new...and suggests a much larger number of active volcanoes than previously thought. Once again, I am not suggesting that volcanoes alone are warming the oceans - it's only a possibility: volcanoes must be causing some warming to the oceans because, well, they're hot, aren't they? (Nice bit of maths, by the way OON! )

But the more pertinent point about undersea volcanoes is the CO₂ they give off, which must either remain in bubbles or else become dissolved in the oceans. If they remain as bubbles then they wll rapidly surface and release the gas into the atmosphere. If they become dissolved into the oceans then eventually some of that CO₂ will reach the surface and be outgassed - this process may take 200 years, what with deep sea overturning being a tediously slow process, but there's no reason to suppose that these volcanoes weren't under the oceans 200 years ago (in which case we may not see any increased volcanic activity now, but there may have been 200 years ago).

So, perhaps this process isn't as impossible than it may first appear.

Iceberg:

I think most of the volcanism under water comes from ocean ridges (where the plates are moving away forming new ocean floors or from Island arc scenario's).

Plate boundaries and volcanic hotspots are the two known areas for volcanoes to form, but last year scientists found a new type of volcano ("Petit Spot" Volcanoes), which may account for vast numbers of undersea volcanoes. Here's a link to New Scientist, 27th July 2006:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9629...ginations-.html

There's still an awful lot we don't actually know about our planet, and a lot of what we do know isn't necessarily etched in stone, which is precisely the reason why papers such as Dr Beck's should at least be given some consideration.

CB

[Devonian]

Devonian:

People have done the maths, but only based on the number of known volcanoes - this New Scientist article is new...very new...and suggests a much larger number of active volcanoes than previously thought. Once again, I am not suggesting that volcanoes alone are warming the oceans - it's only a possibility: volcanoes must be causing some warming to the oceans because, well, they're hot, aren't they? (Nice bit of maths, by the way OON! )

But the more pertinent point about undersea volcanoes is the CO₂ they give off, which must either remain in bubbles or else become dissolved in the oceans. If they remain as bubbles then they wll rapidly surface and release the gas into the atmosphere. If they become dissolved into the oceans then eventually some of that CO₂ will reach the surface and be outgassed - this process may take 200 years, what with deep sea overturning being a tediously slow process, but there's no reason to suppose that these volcanoes weren't under the oceans 200 years ago (in which case we may not see any increased volcanic activity now, but there may have been 200 years ago).

CB

CB, EG Beck is suggesting a fantastic rise and a fall of CO2 in about 25 years. What you are suggesting is both a amazing rise in undersea volcanicity atm (you've quoted NS and you're suggesing they might be causing warming) and one about 200 years ago (so that that CO2 has time to diffuse out around 1940 and in a few years). Seriously?

I'm beginning to think you might be 'extracting a certain substance'? Because I simply can't see how you're being serious?

[Admiral_Bobski]

CB, EG Beck is suggesting a fantastic rise and a fall of CO2 in about 25 years. What you are suggesting is both a amazing rise in undersea volcanicity atm (you've quoted NS and you're suggesing they might be causing warming) and one about 200 years ago (so that that CO2 has time to diffuse out around 1940 and in a few years). Seriously?

I'm beginning to think you might be 'extracting a certain substance'? Because I simply can't see how you're being serious?

Yes, Dr Beck is suggesting a fairly substanitial variance in CO₂ over the past 180 years or so - just because you do not know how this could have happened doesn't mean that it didn't happen, which is precisely why I intend to look at Dr Beck's copious notes which he has kindly given us all a link to.

If you re-read my last post, I am not, in fact, suggesting an "amazing rise in undersea volcanicity" at the moment, or even necessarily 200 years ago (although I am saying that there is a possibility that there was increased vulcanicity 200 years ago - or even in the 1940s, for that matter, which may have gone undetected due to the fact that it was happening at the bottom of the sea).

What I am saying is that there is a huge number of volcanoes under the oceans that we didn't know of as recently as 5 years ago, there is an even greater number of volcanoes that we have not even found yet (their presence is inferred by the distribution of those which have been found so far), and we don't really know what all of those volcanoes are doing or how long they have been doing it for.

So you see, this is another example of a great deal of uncertainty in an area which could have a great deal of relevance to the wider debate.

So, no - I am not extracting the wee at all. I am most decidedly serious in my attempts to get to the bottom of the problem. If there is something in this paper, which isn't out of the question, then it is worth examining.

CB

[egb]

that´s exactly what I have done!

because it is not possible to compress detailed listings of method evalutaions, location data, personal data, error comparisons and data inspections in 23 pages (my paper in E&E) I did the details on a website: http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2_supp.htm.

For the whole monograph ( History of CO2 Gas analysis) I am sorry you have to wait some months until publishing.

Please look at Giessen 1939/41, state of the art weather station with electrified equipment and a Paul Schuftan dsigned gas analyser (<3% accuracy). 64 000 measured data, every 90 minutes in 0;0,5m;2m and 14 m height. Aanalysis of one sample within 5 minutes (Keeling in 1956 3,5 hrs) in a temperature constant room (>120 per day). Location out of the city of Giessen, flat area well ventilated over Lahn valley inversion. No industry, brownstone minig in 5 km, railway track within 1 km, barracks and airport within 3 km, litte forest " Philosophenwaeldchen" in som 100 m distance. Measurement of all important weather parameters: radiation, pressure, temperature, humidity, wind, wind speed and CO2. yearly average 1939/1940 in 2m : 417 ppm. Data are standard at the time in German Reich. See for more:

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/daten/lei...607/leiden1.htm

regards

Ernst Beck

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]

EGB wrote:

"No industry, brownstone mining in 5 km"

Ernst, are you saying in your view any site at least 5km from industrial activity will give a 'background', a uncontaminated, CO2 level reading? If you are I'm utterly amazed!

[Admiral_Bobski]

EGB wrote:

"No industry, brownstone mining in 5 km"

Ernst, are you saying in your view any site at least 5km from industrial activity will give a 'background', a uncontaminated, CO2 level reading? If you are I'm utterly amazed!

What would be your recommendation then?

CB

[Osbourne One-Nil]

6km.

[Admiral_Bobski]

6km.

6km...6km....do we have any advance on 6km...?

Going once...

Going twice...

Sold to the mod at the back!

CB

Edited July 23, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Devonian]

What would be your recommendation then?

CB

CB, we need to know what we're trying to measure. If the aim be to measure what's happening to CO2 concentrations in the well mixed atmosphere or not. You wouldn't, surely, measure methane concentration next to a termite mound and claim that represents the atmosphere as a whole?

Firstly I'd quote others:

"...nearly all early sampling facilities were tested in continental environments often under the sporadic influence of heavily polluted air masses (such as Paris, Parc Montsouris, Copenhagen, Dieppe etc.). How large is the influence of such “CO2 pollution”? A quick tour through my car-traffic-saturated home town, Paris, can give us a good first impression:

* Jardin Luxembourg (major but still tiny green spot in the center of Paris) 425ppm

* Place de la Bastille: 430ppm

* Place de l’Etoile (the crazy huge roundabout around the Arc de Triomphe): 508ppm

* And the winner was Place de la Nation: 542ppm (ie 160ppm over background!).

All these measurements by David Widory and Marc Javoy (reference below) were snapshot measurements, but they show how CO2 concentrations can vary strongly due to nearby fossil fuel combustion."

So it's clear 5km away from industrial/urban site is bound to be open to variation due winds/weather - you simply can't get a meaningful result if you don't exclude such measurements. No, you'd get a result that varies hugely....

What have scientists done? Perhaps chosen places far away from industrial/urban areas like Antarctica or islands in the Pacific? Damn right they have!

All this is about getting a measurement of the 'well mixed' atmosphere. I some ways I don't doubt the reading Ernst uses, just as I wouldn't doubt methane measurements next to termite mounds, but they say more about wind direction and weather than global or hemispheric CO2 concentrations/trends.

Edited July 23, 2007 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

"...nearly all early sampling facilities were tested in continental environments often under the sporadic influence of heavily polluted air masses (such as Paris, Parc Montsouris, Copenhagen, Dieppe etc.). How large is the influence of such “CO2 pollution”? A quick tour through my car-traffic-saturated home town, Paris, can give us a good first impression:

* Jardin Luxembourg (major but still tiny green spot in the center of Paris) 425ppm

* Place de la Bastille: 430ppm

* Place de l’Etoile (the crazy huge roundabout around the Arc de Triomphe): 508ppm

* And the winner was Place de la Nation: 542ppm (ie 160ppm over background!).

All these measurements by David Widory and Marc Javoy (reference below) were snapshot measurements, but they show how CO2 concentrations can vary strongly due to nearby fossil fuel combustion."

But all of those places are still in Paris - presumably the 5km figure is 5km from the outskirts of the industrial areas. Also, interestingly, Realclimate don't themselves give a suggestion of just how far away from sources of pollution is far enough away.

Presumably also Dr Beck has considered only those measurements taken when the wind was favourable for (ie, blowing pollution away from, rather than towards) the location at which the measurement was taken, which seems to be the case since he mentions wind speed and direction in the paper.

What have scientists done? Perhaps chosen places far away from industrial/urban areas like Antarctica or islands in the Pacific? Damn right they have!

No need to get quite so emphatic! Dr Beck's sources are from a variety of locations, not just close to industry, and not just in the Northern Hemisphere, so perhaps there is a balanced viewpoint here after all...

CB

[egb]

Of course there is no "background" reading at Giessen. We should not use the word " uncontaminated" because CO2 is not contamination but natural.

In my view background is synthetical construct and it represents the CO2 level in locations with lesser and special CO2 influence. Mauna Loa has its special CO2 sources (volcanic degassing, they have to eleminate it from data by hand) and marine absorption in the lower layers and the forgotten influence: washing out by humidity.

You always measure local effective concentration, in Giessen it was continental.

regards

Ernst

EGB wrote:

"No industry, brownstone mining in 5 km"

Ernst, are you saying in your view any site at least 5km from industrial activity will give a 'background', a uncontaminated, CO2 level reading? If you are I'm utterly amazed!

[Devonian]

Ernst, I'm pretty gobsmacked by your reply.

Forget the word 'natural', Ernst - CO2 is indeed CO2* what matters, if we're measuring atmospheric CO2, is it's source. If you're 5km downwind of a large area of industrial activity the concentration of CO2 in the air will on occasions be very much enhanced (with respect to areas far from industrial activity) by that CO2 resultant from the combustion of fossil fuels. Surely? I mean surely? This has been shown to be so by numerous modern measurement.

But, it seem to me, you're saying 'so what'? If you are saying that you're combining a load of local measurements and saying the line you come up with is 'NH' - no it is not, it's a load of unrepresentative local measurements!

It is indeed possible to obtain very accurate measurements of the 'well mixed' concentration of CO2 - one that doesn't very wildly, one that charts overall change - in the atmosphere and such a measure is obtained by sampling in areas far from human influence - and that's NOT cities in Germany...

* well fossil fuel derived CO2 is rather C13 depleted.

[Guest Viking141]

This newly published report from South Africa establishes what they believe to be a clear link between solar activity and climate processes. A couple of quotes below make interesting reading:

"This study is based on the numerical analysis of the properties of routinely observed hydrometeorological data which in South Africa alone is collected at a rate of more than half a million station days per year, with some records approaching 100 continuous years in length. The analysis of this data demonstrates an unequivocal synchronous linkage between these processes in South Africa and elsewhere, and solar activity. This confirms observations and reports by others in many countries during the past 150 years. It is also shown with a high degree of assurance that there is a synchronous linkage between the statistically significant, 21-year periodicity in these processes and the acceleration and deceleration of the sun as it moves through galactic space. Despite a diligent search, no evidence could be found of trends in the data that could be attributed to human activities.

It is essential that this information be accommodated in water resource development and operation procedures in the years ahead."

and:

"It is extremely important that all those involved with water resource studies should appreciate that there are fundamental flaws in current global climate models used for climate change applications. These models fail to accommodate the statistically significant, multiyear periodicity in the rainfall and river flow data observed and reported by South African scientists and engineers for more than the past 100 years. They also failed to predict the recent climate reversals

based on Alexander’s model (Alexander 1995b, 2005a)."

The full report can be found at the following link:

Link to South African report

[egb]

Devonian,

I don´t understand your problem. Please read my paper and look at the graphs. I have evaluated all locations inclusive all possible influences. I have not excluded any. There is no dispute: Giessen was a continental station with all it´s influences as e.g. Schauinsland. At Schauinsland ( southern Germany, ner the city of Freiburg) they process data to get fanatstic background level.

http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltex...midtJGR2003.pdf

The brownstone mining is the only industry near Giessen with sampling brownstone on the surface. No industrial processing but transporting raw matrial to the Ruhrgebiet. Kreutz hat clearly shown the influence from south-west direction in his wind diagram.

Please look at other measuring locations at that time (Point Barrow, Scotland coast, northern atlantic ocean etc. They all measure very high CO2 at that times in total I inspected 41 locations since 1927 -1961.

Please also take into account that since 1880 to 1927 there could not be found any high CO2 level out of 83 yearly averages and different locations. (inclusive all local influences)

So despite what´s the local source, I have taken it into account.

regards

Ernst

Ernst, I'm pretty gobsmacked by your reply.

Forget the word 'natural', Ernst - CO2 is indeed CO2* what matters, if we're measuring atmospheric CO2, is it's source. If you're 5km downwind of a large area of industrial activity the concentration of CO2 in the air will on occasions be very much enhanced (with respect to areas far from industrial activity) by that CO2 resultant from the combustion of fossil fuels. Surely? I mean surely? This has been shown to be so by numerous modern measurement.

But, it seem to me, you're saying 'so what'? If you are saying that you're combining a load of local measurements and saying the line you come up with is 'NH' - no it is not, it's a load of unrepresentative local measurements!

It is indeed possible to obtain very accurate measurements of the 'well mixed' concentration of CO2 - one that doesn't very wildly, one that charts overall change - in the atmosphere and such a measure is obtained by sampling in areas far from human influence - and that's NOT cities in Germany...

* well fossil fuel derived CO2 is rather C13 depleted.

[Eli Rabett]

jethro,

Sitemeter allows me to see who is reading Rabett Run, and I occasionally click through to see what is going on. While there was considerable material quoted from my previous posts, what I posted here was a summary of the problems one has measuring concentrations of gases at low levels from the atmosphere, and why one needs to be very cautious. I also should have stuck around.

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?

On the contrary, Beck clearly has no experience in field measurements, wet titrations and spectroscopic measurements and as a consequence has no basis on which to evaluate the papers.

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?

Measurements of CO2 atmopspheric concentrations are not the same as measurements of emissions. It is well known that much of the emitted CO2 rapidly is absorbed by oceanic and surface sinks, many of them biogenic. I discussed this in a recent post on carbon cycles, providing a series of simplified models as well as links to realistic models that you can run on line. This is a very basic point.

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?

My argument is that there are MANY sources of error, including siting, sampling, calibrating, and skill in carrying out the titration. I have read enough of the older literature to have seen multiple examples of each. Further, we have a some good ice core measurements which show that [CO2] was pretty much unchanged at ~280 ppm until about 1800, when it started smoothly rising. Given so many problems, sadly, the answer to your question is no.

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.

The IPCC is accretive, the process is designed to concentrate on new information. For example the TAR is taken as the starting point for the AR4, otherwise the task would be much too difficult. The earlier work had been evaluated and it was understood that most of it was artifact.

There have been previous evaluations, and what I wrote are their basic conclusion. On reviewing many of the references Beck cites, what I find, as those who looked at them critically in later years, is an essentially absolute lack of stated calibration against standard samples. That is about as big a no-no as you can find in analytical chemistry. I find it hard to credit ANY measurement without such a calibration. While the accuracy of the various titrations might be is 1-3% based on the stoichiometry of the method, the actual error in any particular measurement without a calibration is an unconstrained GUESS.

[Cumulonimbus Tower]

Morning All,

I thought that this link might interest some of you climatologists. I work for an environmental company whose aim, amongst other things is to reduce CO2 emissions and this has just been circulated -

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics#Stages%20of%20Denial

Should spice up the debate if nothing else ;-)

Sorry if it’s been posted before by the way.

Ned

[Osbourne One-Nil]

There's Royal Irish Academy?!

[Gray-Wolf]

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics#Stages%20of%20Denial

Should spice up the debate if nothing else ;-)

Sorry if it's been posted before by the way.

Ned

Cheers Ned, Saves a lot of typing eh?

Ian.

[johnholmes]

Morning All,

I thought that this link might interest some of you climatologists. I work for an environmental company whose aim, amongst other things is to reduce CO2 emissions and this has just been circulated -

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics#Stages%20of%20Denial

Should spice up the debate if nothing else ;-)

Sorry if it's been posted before by the way.

Ned

oh lovely another source to argue if its right or wrong. Head withdrawn below parapet again!

[jethro]

jethro,

Sitemeter allows me to see who is reading Rabett Run, and I occasionally click through to see what is going on. While there was considerable material quoted from my previous posts, what I posted here was a summary of the problems one has measuring concentrations of gases at low levels from the atmosphere, and why one needs to be very cautious. I also should have stuck around.

On the contrary, Beck clearly has no experience in field measurements, wet titrations and spectroscopic measurements and as a consequence has no basis on which to evaluate the papers.

Measurements of CO2 atmopspheric concentrations are not the same as measurements of emissions. It is well known that much of the emitted CO2 rapidly is absorbed by oceanic and surface sinks, many of them biogenic. I discussed this in a recent post on carbon cycles, providing a series of simplified models as well as links to realistic models that you can run on line. This is a very basic point.

My argument is that there are MANY sources of error, including siting, sampling, calibrating, and skill in carrying out the titration. I have read enough of the older literature to have seen multiple examples of each. Further, we have a some good ice core measurements which show that [CO2] was pretty much unchanged at ~280 ppm until about 1800, when it started smoothly rising. Given so many problems, sadly, the answer to your question is no.

The IPCC is accretive, the process is designed to concentrate on new information. For example the TAR is taken as the starting point for the AR4, otherwise the task would be much too difficult. The earlier work had been evaluated and it was understood that most of it was artifact.

There have been previous evaluations, and what I wrote are their basic conclusion. On reviewing many of the references Beck cites, what I find, as those who looked at them critically in later years, is an essentially absolute lack of stated calibration against standard samples. That is about as big a no-no as you can find in analytical chemistry. I find it hard to credit ANY measurement without such a calibration. While the accuracy of the various titrations might be is 1-3% based on the stoichiometry of the method, the actual error in any particular measurement without a calibration is an unconstrained GUESS.

Good morning Eli,

Thank you for replying to my post.

I am however puzzled, I am a lay person merely trying to wade through and absorb, understand both sides of all the hype surrounding AGW. There are pros and cons and holes to be picked, questions to be asked on both sides. I appreciate it was I who posted the original link to Beck's paper to which you responded, but Ernst himself responded to your criticism and covered the points you made above. Would it therefore not be more appropriate for you to respond to the man himself? Certainly from my point of view;joe public with doubts; your arguement would carry more weight if it were in direct answer to the scientist about the science.

I understand the difference between measuring atmospheric Co2 and Co2 emissions but to accurately understand the impact of one upon the other, you must first be certain of the variations of the former and the causes. Whilst the IPCC's use of modern, up to date information is admirable, it's dismissal of historical data is not. At the very least, it raises questions of the credibility of their impartiality.

I maintain my stance that this paper is important to the fundamental arguement of the basis of our understanding of AGW and all its' ramifications and therefore it should be studied further, not lightly dismissed as just another baseless, straw clutching, sceptic delusion. The baseline from which we judge the impact of our emissions on the atmosphere, must from my point of view, be as solid as it can possibly be. All relevant data from which we can further our understanding and knowledge must be included for examination, regardless of how difficult that makes the task.

[Devonian]

The baseline from which we judge the impact of our emissions on the atmosphere, must from my point of view, be as solid as it can possibly be. All relevant data from which we can further our understanding and knowledge must be included for examination, regardless of how difficult that makes the task.

jethro,

What makes you think that scientists haven't do this over the last 50-100 years? Why does Ernst know better than all those chemists/atmosphere scientists/meteorologists? Why are you so uncritical of Ernst's view? Finally, and crucially for me, if Ernst is right (he isn't) where does 100ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere go in about a decade, and if it happened last century why isn't it happening now?

One other question, since you question Eli are you who you say you are? A 'yes' will do it.

[jethro]

jethro,

What makes you think that scientists haven't do this over the last 50-100 years? Why does Ernst know better than all those chemists/atmosphere scientists/meteorologists? Why are you so uncritical of Ernst's view? Finally, and crucially for me, if Ernst is right (he isn't) where does 100ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere go in about a decade, and if it happened last century why isn't it happening now?

One other question, since you question Eli are you who you say you are? A 'yes' will do it.

But that's precisely the point isn't it? Scientists have measured over the last 50-100 years and it is their body of work which Ernst has published. Ernst isn't claiming to know better, he is asking why has this body of evidence been dismissed. Hasn't EGB already answered your question re: 100ppm?

Uncritical of Ernst's work? Moi? I've posted dozens and dozens of articles and scientific papers from a sceptics view point here, all of which I've posted to raise awareness that the science is not a done deal for the AGW arguement. This paper in my eyes is no different from the rest, I haven't singled it out for attention; in some ways that honour must go to Eli; do you not find it even remotely odd that he has chosen this paper or topic to wade into this forum? Why now? There have been plenty of other contentious issues that myself and others have raised here.

Yes, I am who I say I am; writer turned gardener, sometimes with a crossover of the two, harassed mother of three with a house which resembles a building site; are you who you say you are? Does it matter who we are? We don't have a famous persona, our words carry no weight.

[Devonian]

But that's precisely the point isn't it? Scientists have measured over the last 50-100 years and it is their body of work which Ernst has published. Ernst isn't claiming to know better, he is asking why has this body of evidence been dismissed. Hasn't EGB already answered your question re: 100ppm?

But, these measurement have been looked at and have been ruled out. They simply make no sense. CO2 simply can't have changed as Ernst claims, for a start such changes would leave other signs - there are none.

Uncritical of Ernst's work? Moi? I've posted dozens and dozens of articles and scientific papers from a sceptics view point here, all of which I've posted to raise awareness that the science is not a done deal for the AGW arguement. This paper in my eyes is no different from the rest, I haven't singled it out for attention; in some ways that honour must go to Eli; do you not find it even remotely odd that he has chosen this paper or topic to wade into this forum? Why now? There have been plenty of other contentious issues that myself and others have raised here.

I suspect it's because he's a scientist who doesn't like to see dubious science go unscrutinised. Ernst has done a fine job from a historian perspective of gathering together all the various measurements. But, again, his reconstruction of NH CO2 history makes no scientific sense.

Yes, I am who I say I am; writer turned gardener, sometimes with a crossover of the two, harassed mother of three with a house which resembles a building site; are you who you say you are? Does it matter who we are? We don't have a famous persona, our words carry no weight.

It doesn't, but you doubted Eli so in the best traditions of geese and sauce :blush:

[jethro]

But, these measurement have been looked at and have been ruled out. They simply make no sense. CO2 simply can't have changed as Ernst claims, for a start such changes would leave other signs - there are none.

I suspect it's because he's a scientist who doesn't like to see dubious science go unscrutinised. Ernst has done a fine job from a historian perspective of gathering together all the various measurements. But, again, his reconstruction of NH CO2 history makes no scientific sense.

It doesn't, but you doubted Eli so in the best traditions of geese and sauce :lol:

Fair enough Dev, I posted it for scrutiny and to raise awareness, I've achieved both so I'm happy and no doubt I'll post more links/papers which you and I will disagree upon; that's life. You are happy with the IPCC stance, I'm not. I began this journey of learning from a believer in the general idea of AGW, the more I've read, the more I've learnt, the more I see there are reasons for concern, doubt and questioning; whilst that remains I'll continue to ask and challenge. Never in my wildest dreams would I ever imagine you and I will ever agree, you always appear a black/white kind of guy in this debate, I'm more of a grey area in the middle kind of gal.