/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8870764
>>>8870683
>>Posts article from Energy and Environment, headed by Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen who is quoted as stating the purpose of the journal is to "[follow] my political agenda -- a bit, anyway"
>Another quote from this person.
>>I'm not ashamed to say that I deliberately encourage the publication of papers that are sceptical of climate change
>Here's a good read on why E&E is such a awful journal:
>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/feb/25/real-climate-libel-threat
>>The journal also published a much-maligned analysis suggesting that levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide could go up and down by 100 parts per million in a year or two,

No, not that fast. More importantly, Keeling dogmatically assumed his background hypothesis of CO2 levels and deleted data that didn't fit. >>8874046
The actual data showed large variance. Beck didn't claim those levels were the same all over the globe. That's just a projection of the Keeling dogma. In fact, Beck insisted that there was no global "background level."
Beck, Ernst-Georg. "180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods." Energy & Environment 18.2 (2007): 259-282.

>>8710015
How often do people have to post this garbage where they tack on high frequency instrumental data, to low-frequency, low-accuracy data? Instant hockey stick. What crap.

Here's an apples to apples graph, pic related.

Source
Beck, Ernst-Georg. "180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods." Energy & Environment 18.2 (2007): 259-282.

>>8627345
> Large spikes at the end of smooth graphs reveal statistical incompetence from mixing different data types
Graph: CO2 from 1812 on. Same sampling type.
Source: Beck, Ernst-Georg. "180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods." Energy & Environment 18.2 (2007): 259-282.

>>8578721
> Mom I created a huge spike!
Ah yes, tacking on high-frequency, high-variance data (daily) onto data which has a temporal resolution of about 50 years. A statistical abomination.

What happens when you look at instrumental data through out, instead of combining ice core data with instrumental data. Voila! CO2 values have been just as high before the advent of the SUV.
Source; Beck, Ernst-Georg. "180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods." Energy & Environment 18.2 (2007): 259-282.

>nb4 Where did Gigatons of CO2 come from?
Clearly you are unaware that a warming ocean outgasses gigantic amounts of CO2
The answer is about 6 gigatons for a mere 0.1 degree C change in ocean temperature.
as large as all the Anthropogenic CO2 output in a year.


Ocean area is 360,000,000 sq km = 360 x 10^12 sq metres
Ocean Mass: 1 gigatonne (Gt) = 10^9 tonnes = 10^12 kg = 10^12 m^3 water

Volume of oceans to 3m depth = 360 x 3 x 10^12 m^3 ie approx. 10^15 m^3
Mass of oceans to 3m depth = 10^15 / 10^9 Gt = 10^6 Gt
CO2 dissolved to 3m at 15ºC = 10^6 x 0.2/100 Gt = 2,000 Gt
CO2 outgassed for 0.1ºC temp rise = 2,000 x 0.3/100 Gt
= 6 Gt ie one year's emissions

Continued
>>8249776 >>8243966
>>>8249191

>>"Indeed it is not directly possible to make a distinction between 13C depleted fossil fuel burning and 13C depleted vegetation decay. The fingerprint of d13C changes by vegetation over the seasons is much larger than from fossil fuel burning"
>I am speechless. That is literally the fucking "how can the globe be warming if it's snowing outside?" argument.
You are making zero sense. If a small signal is obscured by a large signal, it's very hard , if not impossible to measure. Deal with it.

>>>8249550
>>CO2 half-life 5 years
>>This has been the result of studies for years.
>>Do the IPCC modelers still use 50..200 years?
>You're still confusing the atmospheric half-life with the residence time. They're two different values, with two different meanings.
>Stop.
Why don't you stop? Henry's law does not apply. Atmospheric CO2 is mostly from natural sources. The majority of the increase is probably from ocean out-gassing.

Pic related, from Beck, Ernst-Georg. "180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods." Energy & Environment 18.2 (2007): 259-282.

Ahlbeck, Jarl. "On the Increased Rate of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Accumulation 1980-2008." Energy & environment 20.7 (2009): 1149-1154.
Atmospheric CO2 increase DOES NOT correlate with anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It correlates with and lags temperature.
Quirk, Tom. "Sources and sinks of carbon dioxide." Energy & environment 20.1 (2009): 105-121.
"The yearly increases of atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been nearly two orders of magnitude greater than the change to seasonal variation which implies that the fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year that it is emitted."
C13 temporal peaks correlate with ENSO events.
Read up buddy.

>>8094034
Utterly false. The air bubbles in ice core data have a time range starting at about 70+ years and growing to 1000s of years for very old air bubbles. A 70+ year running average smoother will smooth out significant peaks (and valleys). Look at these data from actual atmospheric measurements. They show that 19th century CO2 was, at times, just as high and even higher than now.

Source: Beck, Ernst-Georg. "180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods." Energy & Environment 18.2 (2007): 259-282., Fig. 12.

>>8002480
>>8002206
>>proponents of AGW have been caught lying quite often
>can you show any source for this assertion? can you show an example of climatologists making shit up to further climate change theory?
Making up the historical record of CO2