Books Click images for more details
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
Mar 20, 2017 at 4:44 PM | Dung
The amount of money spent on Climate Science salaries has risen at a far faster rate than atmospheric CO2. No harm or damage has occurred due to rising CO2 levels, however the amount of harm and damage caused by the exponential rise in Climate Science salaries, has caused misery to spread around the world. People who have never heard of Climate Science are dying in misery, for lack of a Hockey Stick size and shaped bit of firewood to burn.
Many Climate Scientists have benefitted from spreading misery about the future of the World, however the rest of the World is feeling better now, as Climate Scientists reach Unprecedented levels of misery about their future.
Too much of a good thing can be unhealthy, but based on current evidence, there is no reason to be worried about 500ppm. With non-existent ocean acidification, fish are not going to come out of the sea pickled, but Climate Scientists are not going to get pickled at taxpayer's expense on tropical island sea front conferences.
51 comments about CO2 levels and not a single mention of the most accurate global CO2 (and photosynthesis) mapping space mission the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) which is actually in part calibrated against the Mauna Loa measurements.
It isn't unreasonable to expect the "record surge" commentary to be informed by this resource - or could it just be that the tale told by OCO-2's data does not fit with some folks narratives?
Hardly cherry picking when that vast quantity of calibrated data is being essentially ignored is it? People are talking a bit nebulously about mixing - when OCO-2 is mapping it .....
aTTP: Thanks for the link to "El Nino drives fastest annual increase on record of carbon dioxide" earlier on this thread. I should have read it at the time, as it's nice and short and readily comprehensible to a layman.
I'm interested in whether there is any suggestion that the El Nino phenomenon is becoming more intense as a result of increased anthropogenic CO2 emissions, or whether it is thought to be coincidental (i.e. natural) that the most recent El Nino was so large. Can you enlighten me, please?
tomo: do you have any more info regarding Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) please? As you point out, it's clearly highly germane to this thread.
OCO-2 is a an orbiting spectrometer instrument. It was launched with considerable fanfare - "we'll be able to peer down an individual polluter's chimney" isn't much of an exaggeration of the capability provided.
There are issues with calibration and sampling geometry but the initial results have been uncomfortable (very I would say) for the alarmists - since even if you accept the limitations - the distribution of CO2 measured has shown Gavin's GISS CO2 models to be works of fantasy. There's CO2 where there "shouldn't be any" and none where "there should be lots" - its something of a conundrum.
That said the handling of the data has been simply appalling by any standards with the obfuscation level set to high - the first decent map that tried to replicate the GISS model using as near as possible the GISS colour regime was done by a member of the public.... See here
Since 2015 we've been treated to ... not much apart from afaics one totally distorted 3D effort with a bluidy music soundtrack....
Talk about inconvenient data.... I'm surprised it hasn't been hit by a passing lump of space debris - it's that embarrassing.
More HERE and a selection of Google imagery here
OCO-2 "down the chimney" view
Thanks for your contributions. I've been on the website for OCO-2 and found it all a bit less than clear to a layman. Like you, I'm a bit surprised that they aren't making more of it, given its obvious centrality to the debate.
I'm more than a "bit surprised" I'm utterly disgusted at the convoluted antics deployed to sideline OCO-2 observations.
Yes, there is "research inertia" and there is a lot of data - it is however abundantly clear that there is very little appetite for comparing actual observation to the models. FFS Gavin's discredited CO2 contrivances are still up on the web and garnering more coverage than actual observed CO2 ( well OK, absorption spectra - but it works for me)
It is less than clear because that is the intent - the period of time that has elapsed since data gathering started without any even trivial meaningful interpretation of the results speaks for itself.
They got more than they bargained for with OCO-2
Mar 20, 2017 at 10:48 PM | tomo
Very expensive satellite data is only valid when Hockey Teamsters decide it proves Mann's Hockey Stick.
Someone must have decided that OCO-2 was worth spending lots of taxpayer's money on, and someone must have viewed the data, and decided it was embarrassing, as it did not produce the "correct" results.
"And/or is the explanation that natural CO2 emissions are increasing in a way that previously eluded us?"
It is widely accepted that a warm climate will result in an increase of atmospheric CO2 around 600 - 1000 years after the warming. Let's say we had a warm period around 1200AD, then, according to the climate records we'd expect to see an increase in CO2 between around 1800 and 2200. There is a difference in the isotopes of CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels in that there is no CO214 isotope from fossil fuels, which emit CO12 isotope according to the scientists.
This is a little distressing because it seems that we haven't yet had the outgassing of CO2 that follows a warm period. I'm assuming that Mann's hockeystick was bollocks and there was a MWP, which I don't think anyone seriously doubts.
I am grateful for the comments. They expose my ignorance, but I'm learning all the time. Geronimo - can you help me with a more detailed explanation of the isotope issue, please (if you have time)?
geronimo. I believe it is the C13:C12 ratio that is used to argue if CO2 comes from oceanic degassing or vegetation (modern or geological). C14 has a relatively short half life so is absent in CO2 derived from burning fossil fuels, but was generated during atmospheric nuclear bomb tests. However C14 is generated in the troposphere and the production rate varies with the Sun's activity. Since this activity has been very low in recent years I would surmise that C14 production has also been low. Is this being used to imply more human alteration by burning non-C14-containing fossil fuels?
11:52 PM | golf charlie
The dearth of interpretation of OCO-2 results isn't just "someone" .... I get the distinct impression that researchers are actively avoiding the matter.
With a high profile (it was at the start) mission like OCO-2 it's not unusual to have interim processed data published with a bit of commentary on what's been found. This can hardly be said to be the case for this mission.
The observations from OCO-2 as I understand it flatly contradict some consensus positions on CO2 and have exposed unexpected features of global CO2 distribution.
I'd like to be shown to be wrong - but my feeling is that people are holding back from interpreting the observations as there is a considerable amount of politics and threats to some prominent professional folks dignity involved - and few are enthusiastic to try the "The emperor is naked" pariah hat on in the emotionally charged and vicious arena of "Carbon control"....
I have looked quite closely at the OCO-2 project and there are mission specialists involved who are thoroughly competent with quite stellar track records of great work delivering results in a timely fashion. I am left with the feeling that the work has been at least partly suppressed by decisions made at a higher level.
Finally: visualized OCO2 satellite data showing global carbon dioxide concentrations (October 2015)
I remember Dr Murry Salby including an OCO-2 slide in one of his presentations and his pointing out that the areas of higher than the mean CO2 were South America and Africa - not known as areas of heavy industry or major fossil fuel consumption.
The usual culprits retorted that he had cherry-picked (or something).
Is this being used to imply more human alteration by burning non-C14-containing fossil fuels?
Mar 21, 2017 at 9:32 AM | Supertroll
Anything can be used by Climate Scientists to prove their predetermined conclusion. This has proved necessary, because they can not find any genuine evidence. Climate Science remains in Denial about this.
2:11 PM | Martin A
The usual culprits won't talk about OCO-2
I noticed on the OCO-2 website that an OCO-3 would be included on the International Space Station and it would be made from spare parts not used for OCO-2, er what?
Martin A & tomo
the usual suspects are OCD - Obsessive about Carbon Dioxide , until the Truth gets Inconvenient.
The ISS install has been planned for a while ... the flexibility of having somebody point it and the different orbit would in theory at least allow for some more targeted monitoring of carbon belching naughtiness below. A cynic might say that it also allows for some cherry picking - not that Gavin + crew would do that eh?
OCO-2 has been an embarrassment of riches for the CO2 alarmist narrative crew - in that it looks to have the capability to derail a large part of "the consensus".
OCO-2 isn't easy to challenge either - since it has as far as I can see been shown to be very accurate under a tested set of optical geometries and has good spatial resolution. The engineers have done their jobs well.
It's just giving the wrong answer :-)
The engineers have done their jobs well. It's just giving the wrong answer :-)
Mar 21, 2017 at 4:32 PM | tomo
Under normal circumstances, don't Climate Scientists blame the satellites for orbiting at the wrong height, or around the wrong planet, or something, when real data does not match their computer models?
If you trust Climate Scientists, they have never made a mistake about anything, which is why Trump is offering the honesty and knowledge of Climate Science, to whoever wants to pay for it. Any takers?
aCO2 is tiny compared to environmental sources and sinks. Perhaps OCO can provide information on the latter but none on the former where the grant money goes.
There is one full year of OCO data. There have been calibration papers published, but it takes time to do analysis and write a paper .The lead time between submission and publication is six months to 1 year.
Rubbish EM. People don't wait for full publication these days, especially in the field of climate change. If there had been any supportive evidence, there would have been news bulletins galore, media feeds and the rest of the alarmist news manufacturing industry deployed at maximum decibels.
Mar 22, 2017 at 10:38 AM | Supertroll
Data Adjustment Budgets have been cut. They may have to release raw data as part of Trump's initiative to open-up Climate Science to public scrutiny, which would not be welcomed by 97% of Climate Scientists, as they prefer to keep their methodology a closely guarded secret.
I have some small expertise in geophysical data processing (and concur with Supertroll !) - I went to try and process the data from OCO-2 along the lines of Erik Swenson's efforts and discovered as he did - that the standard software tools required a tweak/additional step to parse OCO-2 data into a plot-able format.
In itself that - imho - constitutes obstruction - since *any* worker needs to be able to have georeferenced values to make meaningful maps / visualisations and to maintain data integrity an approved extraction method ensures both accuracy + consistency. Considering OCO-2's budget of US$465 million and the proclaimed virtue of "open data" - the omission of a data extraction tool looks like a deliberate move.
In the run up to the "product release" used by Eric Swenson - actually finding the OCO-2 data on NASA's IT infrastructure was akin to playing the shell game.
Yes - there are people working on the data - but they aren't exactly easy to find. I'd add that some of the folk working on the OCO-2 observations are very obviously activists who - if their social media incontinence is anything to go by - are obviously wrestling with some "challenging" stuff.
There are some features of global CO2 distribution exposed by the early data that - if those features played to the alarmist mindset - we would have been endlessly deluged with doom. As it stands the silence says rather a lot....
I'd add that the PR release last year seems to "skate over" significant divergences between models and observations - in a way that looks quite calculated. .
Mar 22, 2017 at 11:53 AM | tomo
The significant divergence between Computer Generated Models and Earthly Reality, does not exist because Earthly Reality is inaccurate.
Climate Scientists still insist they have got the Physics right, on behalf of the Earth. The Earth is sticking 2 fingers up at the Physics of Climate Science, and Trump has noticed.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.