Bishop Hill Lüdecke et al
Nov 7, 2011 Climate: Surface Over the weekend I was sent a prospective guest posting by Lüdecke et al - this was the same one that has now appeared at Judith Curry's and Matt Briggs' sites. Given that it is widely available elsewhere, I don't see any point in reposting here. However, there has been a rather remarkable reaction to the posting, which looks like it will keep the climate blogs busy for a while.
Richard Tol has pointed out what he says is an error in their statistics (I am not qualified to comment here but his criticisms sound plausible to me). He then goes on to say that Judith C's posting the article then transforms this error into disinformation. I must say I'm struggling with this somewhat. For Judith to be criticised for posting an article based on a peer-reviewed paper seems to me to go too far. It seems to me that you either have to trust in peer review (and only post things that have received its imprimatur) or alternatively you distrust it and to allow post-publication peer review to do its work. Either way, it's hard to criticise Curry for posting the Lüdecke et al article.
Richard Klein meanwhile says that Judith has lost the plot and is posting the work of "politically motivated stats amateurs". Again, this seems quite overwrought to me. I'm sure readers here will recognise the motivation fallacy in action too.
Some of the readers on Judith's blog are also very excitable, one muttering darkly about the outlet for the paper:
I do not know this journal, except that it has previously accepted work by Gerlich and Tscheuschner.
How disreputable.
Judith, meanwhile, just seems to "get it".
If something is wrong, shine a light on it, don’t hide it in a corner. The jury is still out on Ludecke’s papers, they have not been adequately discussed and examined. Perhaps that will happen here.
Bishop Hill
Has the irony of Judith being criticised for posting a critique of a paper on which she is a co-author struck anyone?
It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world.
Reader Comments (90)
@ Gordon Robertson - "Why we are still wasting time with the surface record escapes me."
I very much agree, the current global surface records are so full of noise and problematic that if they aren't worthless they are far from a reliable metric. Ernest Rutherford's comment springs to mind: "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment."
I have long thought that using a network of thermometers 6 feet off the ground to measure global average temperature is fundamentally flawed; due to water's much higher specific heat capacity there is as much heat content in the first 6 feet of the oceans as there is in the whole 100 miles of the atmosphere. It is akin to a medical team trying to gauge the temperature of a patient with a suspected fever by dangling a thermometer 1 foot above his forehead.
I still think the surface stations have some value - particularly when analysed with common sense as some have done - e.g. [the late] John Daly's What the Stations Say".
I would still be interested to see a new much simpler and more rational attempt at a global surface temperature series, e.g. by using fewer (but quality) stations like Tiree or Torshavn as a proxy for the North Atlantic, and MacQuarie Island for the Southern Ocean, and so on, and use only truly inland stations (provided they are not susceptible to UHI) like Alice Springs for land data. I suspect the results would show that the late 20th C warming was much less than we have been led to believe, and that it was mostly confined to the north Atlantic.
Tamsin Edwards said:
"*cheery wave!* Plenty of honest folk in climate science Mac."
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. I think this saying encapsulates all the angst I feel about climate science. I KNOW there are many good scientists working in the field, hell I know a couple. But for too long Science and the rest of climate science has closed ranks when bad science is pointed out to them.
I don't feel bad about scientists making mistakes, or even making false claims. What hurts me is that Science has not corrected this in a timely manner. It's supposed to be self correcting, but it's gotten stuck on this one. It's changing, slowly. I think some scientists are realising that being seen as fallable is not as bad as being seen as dishonest.
I hope so, anyway.
Diogenes
"a pile of scrap-metal and not a gleaming DeLorean"
There's a difference..?
:-)
Gixxerboy
"Poor Judith, having to moderate that lot."
It must be thankless task - I have a mental picture of her rowing a small boat through a crocodile-infested swamp...
BTW, do you ride a GSX?
The climate trolls just haven't a clue. The harder they try to persuade people like Judith Curry to "see the light" and "proclaim the truth", the more she sees their clap trap for what it really is.
Science is a debate about the evidence. We can disagree on how to interpret the evidence, but one either engages openly and honestly in that debate or one is not a scientist.
The pro-group have steadfastly refused to debate, have refused to engage and have refused to be honest.
Gordon Robertson
I agree. If BEST claim that 100-year-old temperature records are reliable then why are 100-year-old CO2 records not equally reliable? As you say, these were being collected by real people in real situations so what is the problem with them?
I have heard claims that CO2 levels today are not out of the ordinary though I haven't seen any research or observational evidence to confirm it (one reason why I've never raised the subject) but if there is any truth in the claims then why are we wasting time and squillions of cash on what looks like a wild goose chase?
As Private Eye would say, "I think we should be told."
"Poor Judith, having to moderate that lot."
It must be thankless task - I have a mental picture of her rowing a small boat through a crocodile-infested swamp...
The days of that lot having any real bite
has gone-- correction they never had any real bite, their only power was fear- they never had the evidence to back them up. Now most people either suspect or like us have seen they are toothless, we can laugh at their antics.There were atmospheric CO2 density sets made early in the 1900s, some showing CO2 densities as high or higher than today.
Where?
Judith's follow up post, Disinformation and pseudo critical thinking, which all things considered, thoroughly masticates the arguments of her critics before excreting them as hypocrisy, maksimovich & Spence_UK have some interesting observations on Richard Tol's understanding of the use of DFA for non linear trend analysis, seemingly his main objection to the published papers!
One wonders how soon Neven will have no one with whom to share his toys!
@Mike Haseler
Jaworowski
"Figure 3, the first reconstruction of trends in CO2 concentration in the Northern Hemisphere is based on more than 90,000 direct chemical measurements in the atmosphere at 43 stations, between 1812 and 2004"
this time with the link
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/Jaworowski%20CO2%20EIR%202007.pdf
sorry
<stong>There were atmospheric CO2 density sets made early in the 1900s, some showing CO2 densities as high or higher than today.
Where?
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS%20Pre-industrial%20CO2.pdf
http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf
I feel like I've just gone into a room where I was told there was nothing to see, there is blood on the floor, a cordite smell in the air, the wall is peppered with holes.
And now someone is going to say ... "told you, there was nothing to see".
Just cause there ain't a body, doesn't mean there isn't a crime.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that historical measurements of CO2 could easily be contaminated for a variety of reasons, but I'm not at all prepared to accept that these results should be hidden.
It is not the blood on the floor which makes me think there is a crime, the way everyone was trying to hide it!
"There were atmospheric CO2 density sets made early in the 1900s, some showing CO2 densities as high or higher than today. Where?"
Mike, google: "Beck, 2007, carbon dioxide" for the pdf of his report. I think that this is the definitive study of historical chemical analysis of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It is well worth the time to read the whole paper.
These are not the measurements you seek!
James P
I have been known to ride GSX-Rs in, ahem, a professional capacity. And very fond of them I am too. Not one has ever tried to kill me, unlike certain Yamahas and Kawasakis I might mention. Right now my pride and joy is a 2011 model Triumph Speed Triple. Much lighter on the carbon dioxides than taking the car, but it does seem to contain helium in the front tyre.
Quote, Tamsin Edwards, "Plenty of honest folk in climate science Mac."
Quote, Mark Twain, "Honesty is the best policy--when there is money in it."
From figures Jo Nova has published - if honesty could be described in dollars spent then climate scientists are the most honest people on the planet.
It is a pity then in this debate that no one longer trusts trustworthy climate scientists.
Gixxerboy
"helium in the front tyre"
LOL!
I only have a humble GS500, but it affords me a lot of pleasure and 70+ mpg keeps the greenies at bay...
Roger,
That is a fascinating paper. Obviously one doesn't immediately jump to the conclusion that the paper's reconstruction is right, but it does suggest very strongly that CO2 levels may vary ... yet another "hockey stick" trick. I was particularly struck by Unrealclimates comment:-
"Beck makes an association of some of the alleged huge CO2 peaks with volcanic eruptions. The Mauna Loa CO2 record started by Charles Keeling 1955 (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/mlo145e_thrudc04.pdf ) however doesn’t show much variability associated with the big eruptions of El Chichon, Agung or Pinatubo. (Readers should know however that on much longer, geologic, timescales, CO2 levels are heavily influenced by volcanic and tectonic activity, but that is not important on the interannual (or even centennial) timescale)."
... In other words, volcanic activity produces massive amounts of CO2 which doesn't show up today, but somehow becomes a massive contributor ... after it's not a problem for their climate models.
They really are the lowest low-life on this planet. If volcanoes affect CO2 in the long run, they most certainly affect it in the short term. And the amount of CO2 will vary according to the type of eruption, so to suggest all volcanoes must produce CO2, and then claim that none produce CO2 that affects climate.
Why don't they just issue a papal decree that the climate/CO2 is flat unless or until the sins of mankind cause it to change?
Mike - Why don't they just issue a papal decree that the climate/CO2 is flat unless or until the sins of mankind cause it to change?
They did, in 2007. I think is was called the Summary for Policy Makers. ;)
Mike,
I haven't read Beck's paper for some time, but if I remember correctly it reports hundreds or thousands of historical CO2 measurements, at diverse locations, over a period of many decades, some by Nobel laureates. I think that there was good overall correlation between many of the measurements, made by different scientists using similar equipment. It convinced me that the ice core "measurements" were very possibly using a hopelessly flawed methodology in the reconstruction of historical atmospheric CO2 concentrations, To the best of my knowledge, nobody has come up with a satisfacory explanation.
Of course, if the ice core measurements can be shown to be flawed, and if CO2 was just as abundant 100 years ago, the whole CAGW house of cards comes crashing down. Like you, I am amazed that this has had so little scrutiny!
Thankyou for the link, Gras Albert. This must have been the paper that I was thinking of though the name 'Beck' rang a vague bell as well.
Mike Haseler
I am not going to jump to conclusions either but I am going to ask a couple of questions:
If this is one of the papers that "dare not speak their name", why would that be?
I haven't seen it mentioned in any of the blogs that I have followed which might lead me to assume that it has been thoroughly debunked and is a load of old codswallop .... or would I be right in suspecting that the opposite might be the case?
Can anyone point me towards an equally readable and understandable paper which undermines Jaworowski or Beck or both?
Mike (Jackson),
This subject has been debated on WUWT. As far as I am aware there has never been a "knock out blow" to Beck or Jaworowski. There is a lot on the web (sorry, no time to find it) that considers the flaws in the ice core methodology. My contribution (on WUWT) was to suggest that a Chemistry department, at a reputable university, tries to repeat the chemical analysis reported by Beck, using identical equipment and methodology. No takers, unfortunately.
I'm puzzled that there is still so much misunderstanding of "peer review".
1) Peer review is not replication or confirmation of experimental findings.
1a) Thousands of published papers have methodological flaws!
2) Favourable peer review is simply a sign of plausibility that journal editors use to assist them in their decision on whether to publish a paper.
2a) Editors can override peer review for several reasons, e.g. if a paper would attract a lot of attention to their journal. They are also open, as human beings, to improper influence/ corruption.
3) The economics and dynamics of electronic publishing are very different from those in print publication. We are living through a period of transition.
4) Post publication criticism and review by practitioners does differ from criticism by enthusiasts, if only because the former understand better the constraints under which the original work was probably carried out.
The Friends of Science site has some links on CO2 history, mostly to papers or presentations by Beck or Jaworowski: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=200
CO2 is quite a tricky thing to measure in the air since, even apart from the chemistry of the measurement process, the levels are subject to a great deal of variability in a wide range of space and time scales. A big attraction of the Mauna Loa site was that it was surrounded by ocean, and so the usual diurnal and seasonal variations of CO2 would be modest compared with, say, a site in western Europe. The idea was that a great deal of mixing would have taken place by the time the land-dominated hemisphere contributions (mostly due to plants of course) reached Mauna Loa. Even then, there are still quite pronounced fluctuations to be seen in the Mauna Loa records.
John,
I agree about Mauna Loa variability.
Two points - Firstly, Mauna Loa is a volcano, and secondly, if the "rise" in atmospheric CO2 is consequent upon ocean outgassing following completely natural "climate change" then this may not be a representative measurement site to compare with historical (chemical) measurements.
Thanks, Roger. I'll do a bit of hunting.
There must be something subversive going on at the BBC.The iPlayer blurb has 'Panorama investigates the inconvenient truth behind the UK's rocketing energy bills - that government policy is stoking much of the rise' Bish couldn't have put it much better himself !
I did not mean to hijack the thread by going off on Beck and CO2 measurements. Beck has been misconstrued by alarmists as a high school biology teacher over-stepping his bounds. In fact, he was the messenger. All he did was collate the work of many scientists (175 papers between 1812 and 1961). I feel strongly that those scientists deserve to be heard, especially if the IPCC is going to push Arrhenius as the basis of its CO2 theory.
Here's Beck's original page http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/ He died recently.
I happened to stumble onto the Moana Loa page the other day, trying to corroborate a news story that CO2 surged nearly 6% in 2010. If you look at the data on the page, the average increase from 2010 - 2011 was the typical 0.6% per annum that is normally claimed, so 2010 was an anomaly. Looking closer, you see that 1998 bypassed them all for surges in CO2.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
The first thing I noticed was the annual variation of CO2. Idso explains it as foliage and vegetation dying off in winter and growing in spring/summer. Remember, the ppmv figure, like 385 ppmv, represents mostly natural CO2, with anthropogenic CO2 making up about 4% of that value. Alarmists argue that the ACO2 figure account for about 30% of that density but if the scientists represented by Beck are right, that theory is speculation based on ice core proxies.
The next things I noted was in the bar graph titled 'Annual Mean Growth Rate for Mauna Loa, Hawaii'. Look at 1998, the warmest year in that era. The surge of CO2 in that year surely cannot be put down to ACO2 alone. There had to be out-gassing from the oceans and the land. 2010 was another warm year, just about as hot as 1998, and it had another surge. In fact, there are a couple of more surges in between that outstrip 2010, yet alarmists are pushing those surges as being caused by increases in anthropogenic emissions.
Something is not right. In the United States,1934 is still the warmest year on record. One of the papers collated by Beck was one by Kreutz, who noted CO2 levels in excess of 400 ppmv in that era. Even if he is out by a bit, that would suggest the warmer oceans in the 1930s would be out-gassing CO2, making his claims possible. I was very impressed by the detail in the work of Kreutz, who took great pains to eliminate variables that would affect his readings. He also took something like 60,000 readings.
One question that remains unanswered for me is how extensively are CO2 measuring stations distributed. Surely we are not relying on the lone setup at Moana Loa, which is on an active volcano.
There was mention of Jaworowski, who has expertise in ice core proxies. He claimed in one of his papers that CO2 densities varied significantly in Antarctic ice cores, and it seems the IPCC cherry picked 270 ppmv for the pre Industrial era.
The argument put forward by Jaworowski that struck me, was his explanation of clathrates. When ice is buried under depths of other ice, it is under tremendous pressure, so much so, that the CO2 bubbles change state to solids, clathrates. J. claimed it is imperative that water not be introduced to the ice, which is impossible since ice melts as it is drilled. Based on that, he has estimated that the pre industrial density may have been 30 to 50% higher.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-ice-HS.htm
@Skeptical Chymist...re peer review.
There is nothing in the scientific method that requires peer review. It was developed initially to keep the riff raff from publishing. Apparently Einstein was considered riff raff since one publisher refused him publication based on the publisher's opinion that E.'s theory was too far out.
Michael Mann, who was front and centre in the Climategate emails, trying to block legitimate peer review, sits on the board of the Journal of Climate, with his buddy from realclimate, Gavin Schmidt. Another of their buddies from Climategate, Kevin Trenberth, was accused openly by Roy Spencer of UAH of 'deep sixing' some of his papers. That is no surprise, when Phil Jones, Trenberth's partner as a Coordinating Lead Author at IPCC reviews, threatened in the emails that he and Kevin would keep certain skeptic papers out of IPCC reviews, even if they had to change the rules.
Peer review has become a joke. On the other extreme, the HIV/AIDS theory was introduced by the Reagan administration in 1983, without peer review. They adopted the viral theory of Robert Gallo, who had already failed by trying to claim that cancer was caused by a virus. He brought his failed theories with him to the AIDS problem, which up till then had been considered a lifestyle issue..
Very recently, in the film, House of Numbers, the scientist who discovered HIV, Luc Montagnier, claimed that HIV will not affect a healthy immune system. That flies in the face of numerous peer reviewed papers stating the opposite, that HIV maliciously destroys an immune system, laying dormant for up to 15 years, then doing its dirty deeds.
Another viral scholar, Peter Duesberg, who was the youngest scientist of his time to be inducted into the National Academy of Science, saw the absurdity in a virus taking 15 years to operate. He claimed that HIV was a harmless virus that accompanied high risk behavior, and was no different than any other virus. Of course, his career was destroyed over that assertion.
If Montagnier is right, the peer review system has not only failed catastrophically, there is a suggestion that it is stacked to represent a certain paradigm, as claimed by Kuhn in his book of 1960's vintage.
In a field so incestuous, peer review is all too often simply a process of taking turns being peer reviewer instead of co-author.
@Mike Haseler ...sorry, I missed your 'where' query with regard to CO2 measurements in the early 1900's. Since that question has been answered several times I wont go into it again. I did not include a link, or Beck's name, because my intent was not to hijack the thread.
Here's a link that gives a brief synopsis of each scientist:
http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/literature/CO2-stations1800-1960.pdf
I admit that some of them look questionable, but one that impressed me was Kreutz, circa 1939. I had a more detailed paper on his methodology that I can't lay my hands on right now. However, he was a chemist, and director of the weather station at Giessen, Germany.
From the link above..."Remarks: Sampling in 4 altitudes: 0, 0,5, 2, 14 m; monitoring radiation, precipitation, cloud cover, wind speed, pressure, humidity. Temperature, CO2 Analysis in temperature controlled room".
I get the impression the guy knew what he was doing, and probably did it with typical German efficiency. I can't say the same for the ice core samples in Antarctica, which were diluted by melt water, with some of them stored improperly. Besides, how do we know the atmosphere in Antarctica vis a vis C02 was typical of the planet? And why, as Jaworowski has claimed, do the densities vary from borehole to borehole?
Note the 1902 entry. The guy was awarded a Nobel in 1920. The point is, many of these people were scholars, and I don't think their work should be minimized, or ignored.
You should read this assessment of the IPCC by expert reviewer Vincent Gray:
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/gray2.ipcc%20spin.pdf
then this one by John Christy, who has served on several reviews as both a lead author and reviewer:
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/ChristyJR_written_110331_all.pdf
I am not slamming the IPCC out of skeptical angst, my opinion on them has formed over the past two years. I did not enter the debate with a jaundiced eye, looking for conspiracy theories, I was initially disturbed by the assertion from them that it was 90% likely that the recent warming is caused by humans. I wanted to know why they were applying a 90% confidence level to an opinion.
As I Googled for answers, one of my first hits was from Richard Lindzen, who claimed that opinion came from 50 lead authors who wrote the Summary for Policymakers, and not the main review, where the opinion was to wait and see what developed. Then I noticed Lindzen being slammed as an oil company hack, so I investigated that. When I became satisfied that he was more a genius than a hack, I began looking more closely at other skeptical arguments, and was finally convinced when I saw the satellite record and how it had been stifled by the IPCC. A bit later, it became obvious that the IPCC is a front for climate modelers, run by Sir John Houghton, a modeler, and a political front for the UN, that has been trying to implement some form of environmentally-oriented universal government through Kyoto author, Maurice Strong.
This is likely way more information than you need, but when you asked 'where?', I took it that you might consider me a denier, which I am not. I accept the planet has warmed the past couple of centuries, I just don't think a rare gas that accounts for 0.04% of atmospheric gases can create such warming.When you consider that all GHGs, including water, account for 1% of atmospheric gases on average, that would mean a 100 pane greenhouse would have 99 of its panes missing.
I am more interested in data, like those collated by Beck, than I am in differential equations programmed into climate models.
On CO2 measurement -
This is one of the things I looked at early on in my interest in climate change, and I had many of the same questions outlined above. Sorry, I don't have time to retrack all the papers but if you want to follow it up yourselves here are a few clues:
1. Yes, Mauna Loa, sited next to an active volcano, does seem a strange place to measure CO2 uncontaminated by localised effects. As has been pointed out, it was chosen because it is an oceanic location, quite isolated from any industrial sources or biomass respiration. Though quite why they couldn't have chosen somewhere here in New Zealand I do not know - we could have offered volcano sides if wanted, well away from them if not; oceanic isolation, lack of vegetation, loads of vegetation, you name it. Anyway, Mauna Loa it is. What convinced me it was okay were the trends.
2. The concentration of naturally released CO2 vs that arising from the burning of fossil fuels is, I believe, well documented because they betray different isotopes - 13 vs 14, IIRC. So not only can you examine the CO2 content of an air sample, you can determine what proportion of the CO2 is man-made and what is natural.
3. Mauna Loa CO2 measurements have been going steadily upward since recording began. The graph is like a saw-tooth, because there are intra-annual variations. But the trend is always upwards. Ditto the concentration of man-made isotope CO2 (though I have not checked for some time to see if 'natural' CO2 is also increasing. Bear in mind that 'natural isotope' CO2 can still be the result of man's actions, through land use changes, thawing permafrost etc.
Shoot me down on this by all means - as I say I have not checked recently, and you'd need to look at the sources. But I concluded early on that any assertions over CO2 not increasing could not be substantiated.
BBD - if you've recovered from the harassment you've recently endured, I'm sure you know more on this than me. Do step in.
@Jeremy Harvey...I realized as I was writing my blurb that I was over-stating the case for abandoning the historical record. Being a part-time emotional Scottish twit, I failed to modify my opinion, so thanks for pointing out the link to climateaudit.
Also, I have nothing against Judith Curry, in fact, I admire her. I was bothered to see her name on the Muller paper, however. The paper is being paraded by alarmists as proof that warming has occurred, which is a no-brainer, especially if you begin in the middle of the Little Ice Age. However, many of them are pushing the paper as proof of AGW. Muller has admitted that the paper does not cover the oceans, which account for 72% of the planet's surface.
I have expertise in electronics and find the kind of telemetry used on satellites to have a real-time analog quality that thermometers lack. Hansen even admitted to the problems with two-a-day readings and the placement of the enclosures as related to the way the near surface temperatures vary so much.
I have taken a course in astrophysics as well as studying microwave radiation in space. We use those lower frequency radiations to learn about emissions in space at great distances, so why not apply them here in our atmosphere? If we can use microwave emissions from O2 molecules in space as indicators of their blackbody temperatures, then why are they shunned by the IPCC on Earth?
I am sure the satellite measurements are not dead accurate, due to averaging, but I am more interested in the contour maps they produce, which reveal the warming to be far more localized than global. Also, I am interested in the humungous number of data points they scan with a 95% coverage. John Christy of UAH has already pointed out that most warming is in the northern part of the Northern Hemisphere, which he does not think is a signature of CO2 warming.
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
If you compare these contour maps between summer and winter, as well as year to year, both in the NH and SH, they tell you a lot that you wont hear from Hadcrut or GISS. Note that the maps have changed slightly since the baseline was increased recently from 1979 - 1998, to 1979 - 2010.
@Gixxerboy re isotopes of CO2. Roy Spencer shot that theory down in one of his articles, claiming the same ratio of isotopes have been found in ordinary mixes of CO2 gases.
Link 2 describes the isotope ratio, but link 1 in worth the read as well.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/double-whammy-friday-roy-spencer-on-how-oceans-are-driving-co2/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/
As to CO2 measurement, while Mauna Loa is perhaps the best known series, there are many other places elsewhere on the globe where CO2 concentration is measured. Here are some of them.
And you're correct that the placement near a volcano, which emits CO2, has the potential to disrupt measurement of the average CO2 concentration. Read this page where they discuss how they arrive at the "background" level of CO2. It involves a lot of selectivity.
I've found the level of detail in this last page quite reassuring that the published values exclude purely local effects and produce something indicative of the global CO2 level. It is, of course, true that there are regional and temporal deviations from the global average. See, for example, this movie which illustrates the annual cycle.
Gordon
As one Scottish twit tae another, thanks for that. Cutting and pasting those URLs doesn't seem to work but I will look them up on WUWT.
Gordon
Interesting stuff from Spencer but also from Englebeen, who has some convincing work on d13C. Way above my scientific pay grade, but it is an interesting topic and worthy of closer inspection.
Gixxerboy...as one Scottish twit back tae another Scottish twit, I tried a copy/paste on link 1 and it worked for me. I have found when doing a copy/paste, that you have to be careful at times with any spaces copied. Hopefully you are not using that quaint old IExplorer. I am using Firefox, although I like the provisions in Opera for 'paste and go'.
Have you tried copying the link into a text editor to see if it translates properly?
It worked, Gordon. I think there must have been a wee server hiatus at WUWT the first time I tried. I also omitted the forward slash at the end, then it worked.
IE? You must be joking. That's Satan's browser.
Gixxerboy...wrt to Roy Spencer, Although I respect him, and agree with him in general, I don't agree with everything he says scientifically. He put forward an argument defending the greenhouse effect, claiming it did not contradict the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. I wrote to him, pointing out that it was not the GHE that contradicted the 2nd Law but the extended GHE, aka AGW. The notion that a cooler, extremely rare gas like anthropogenic CO2, radiating in a very narrow band of frequencies, can back-radiate sufficient IR to super-warm the surface beyond the temperature it is heated by solar energy is a complete contradiction of the 2nd law. Even regarding ACO2 as a heat trapping blanket was ridiculed by physicist/meteorologist, Craig Bohren, as plain silly.
Clausius put the 2nd Law in words, although I can't find the source of the quote at the moment. . He said, a body warmed by warmer body, cannot warm the warming body to a temperature higher than it was when it warmed the cooler body. Gerlich and Tscheuschner argued further, that if it could, we'd have a perpetual motion machine.
That's the kind of nonsense programmed into climate models as a positive feedback, and Lindzen has argued that if the sign was changed to a negative feedback, model projections would fall in line with what we are currently experiencing.
It was Lindzen who argued that climate scientists should remain within the bounds of their expertise, and not go off spouting on other disciplines. Roy agreed, then put his foot in his mouth by arguing that in certain cases, heat could flow from a cooler body to a warmer body. What he missed is that it could flow the other way as radiation, but it could not warm the warming body more than it was when it warmed the cooler body.
I can't buy into the theory that GHGs, accounting for 1% of the atmosphere, can warm a planet from -19 C to +15 C. I can buy into the argument that oceans, accounting for 73% of the earth's surface area, can absorb and retain enough solar energy to do that.