NOAA/NASA Caught With Their Pants Down On Global Warming Numbers...

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Can you show me residence time calculations for CO2?

20ppm rise of CO2 per decade is occurring.

www.esrl.noaa.gov...

It helps to read your sources that you cite. It's clear you have an agenda to prove that all of us humans are to blame for the planet's warming, it couldn't possibly be something else? Not a chance?

You should ALWAYS read the fine print... from your source:

Daily average CO2 values are computed from selected hourly values that satisfy 'background' conditions, i.e. stability and persistence of CO2 concentrations (read below for more information). These daily average values may change as a result of the selection process as additional data become available.

The numbers you use are very subject to change. I don't need to do a residence time calculation to read the sources that you cite and apply a bit of critical thinking.

The pre-industrial revolution numbers you are referring to are not observed or measured values. The only measured values we have based on the source you provided are from 1974 to now. Here is the RAW data:

aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov...

In 1974, the first CO2 ppm measurement taken from Muana Loa, shows a ppm of 333.29, compared to 400.77 today. Going by that, you get 20ppm per decade, yes, but not a 40% increase that you keep referring to. It ends up being less than half of that, around 16%.

See how easy it is to make a number sound more catastrophic? Just change one variable (like you have) and it sounds like we've nearly doubled our CO2 since "pre-industrial times", yet there is no "numbers" that are on record, or measured, from pre-industrial times. The real number of 16% based on the actual measured data, is more reliable and based on fact, not on a "representation" of an assumption.

To add, the data from 1974-1984 shows a ~10ppm increase, not 20ppm. From 1984-1994 shows about 15ppm, so again, not quite the 20ppm you refer to. In fact, it is ONLY the last 2 decades that have seen ~20ppm increases. Do you really think that 40 years is conclusive enough observation and measurement to lay claims to AGW?

Again, from your source:

This figure shows the atmospheric increase of CO2 over 280 ppm in weekly averages of CO2 observed at Mauna Loa. The value of 280 ppm is chosen as representative of pre-industrial air because it is close to the average of CO2 measured and dated with high time resolution between the years 1000 and 1800 in an ice core from Law Dome, Antarctica.

Those are some pretty broad terms and wording is important. First, they are using a measure from ice cores located several thousands of miles from Mauna Loa from the years 1000-1800 to come up with an average of CO2 during that time, and they apply it globally. Then they choose to use that number to represent something that they have not nor could not measure, the actual CO2 in the air at the time.

The irony in your source, is that it is exactly the same source that the OP originally reported being fraudulent, and yet you cite them as your main source of "280ppm to 400ppm" data with there being a 40% increase and 20ppm per decade since pre-industrial revolution times. That is purely false, just based on your own sourced data and you are throwing around numbers to make your argument fit, and then strawman everyone else's questions by saying that they are not equipped to debate you because they can't do a residence time calculation?

Please. We are so arrogant a species. One split-second of the sun being pissed off, and we're all dead, but we have the arrogance to believe we can control a planet's climate or cause it to change?

Whatever helps you sleep better at night JRod. My hat goes off to Semicollegiate and raymunduko. I applaud you both for your patience and candor.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Great post to show the manipulation of mathematics and science to support an agenda based on greed.

Well done!

It highlights the one principal thought that everyone should keep in the forefront of their mind! It is only in the last few years of history have we been able to get accurate numbers and when we do, Science goes and fudges them anyway.

Ice core data is only valid for the location they were taken from.

P

originally posted by: Euphem
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Don't worry about jrod or phage. They like to ignore everything and continuously post the same falsified data in every AGW thread they can get their grubby little hands on.

This clip reminds of them...

www.youtube.com...

I guess they wanted me to know what the time residence calculation is.

That equation is kinda ominous, it says, "We can pick a number and cut out a piece of the economy".

Like when FDR set the price of gold by lucky numbers.

When Roosevelt told Morgenthau he was thinking of raising the price of gold by 21 cents, his entourage asked him why. "It's a lucky number", Roosevelt said. "Because it's three times seven." As Morgenthau later wrote, "If anybody knew how we really set the gold price through a combination of lucky numbers, etc., I think they would be frightened.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Please go take an advanced level atmospheric chemistry class before you try to bust down my credibility.

I learned residence time calculations from Dr. Windsor who used to teach at Florida Institute of Technology.

I can cite PHDs to back up my claims.

So can someone who wants to deny the 40% rise in CO2 concentration as a result of the industrial revolution, please show me a simple residence time calculation?

wattsupwiththat.com...< br />
wattsupwiththat.com...

It appears the OP is vindicated...NOAA is quietly changing its data back to 1936 holding the record... Actual climate scientists started calling them out on it.

Maybe now people will realize that it is possible to hold a PhD and still be wrong.

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne

It helps to read your sources that you cite. It's clear you have an agenda to prove that all of us humans are to blame for the planet's warming, it couldn't possibly be something else? Not a chance?
..........

Please. We are so arrogant a species. One split-second of the sun being pissed off, and we're all dead, but we have the arrogance to believe we can control a planet's climate or cause it to change?
........
Whatever helps you sleep better at night JRod. My hat goes off to Semicollegiate and raymunduko. I applaud you both for your patience and candor.

~Namaste

Again pseudoscience rhetoric. Not a shill of proof to prove me wrong.

We as a species are causing great destruction to this planet.

40% rise in CO2 as a result of the industrial revolution.

Well this has been an entertaining thread.

I don't know for sure if our planet is warming, cooling, or in between normal temperature variations, but for one i know this:

We moved to our apartment on 2005. We did not have an A/C, and our room temps were HOT HOT HOT!

We did purchase a mobile air cooler, and that worked like a charm.

As time has proceeded since 2005 to 2014, gradually, we do not have to use the A/C anymore. Last summer we did use it on ONE day. Also our cars A/C has been broken for 2 years now, and if you would've asked me 5-6 years ago if i'm about to drive a car without A/C, i would've told you that you're crazy just for asking.

This year we almost turned the house A/C on, on early May. Then came the nightfrosts. We had almost 2 weeks of -1 to +6 degrees lows, celcius on mid-june. Now in July, night lows has been barely over 10 deg.

I have logged the weather for a while now, with a weather station.

I really think that our local weather is cooling. (Finland)

a reply to: jrod

It seems ring true that we as a species wreck havoc, more or less where ever we may roam.

But for 40% CO2 rise and the planet destruction has got very little to do with each other. Please revise.

You seem being stuck with carbon dioxide related thought-trains?

originally posted by: jrod

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne

It helps to read your sources that you cite. It's clear you have an agenda to prove that all of us humans are to blame for the planet's warming, it couldn't possibly be something else? Not a chance?
..........

Please. We are so arrogant a species. One split-second of the sun being pissed off, and we're all dead, but we have the arrogance to believe we can control a planet's climate or cause it to change?
........
Whatever helps you sleep better at night JRod. My hat goes off to Semicollegiate and raymunduko. I applaud you both for your patience and candor.

~Namaste

Again pseudoscience rhetoric. Not a shill of proof to prove me wrong.

We as a species are causing great destruction to this planet.

40% rise in CO2 as a result of the industrial revolution.

Wow, what an awesome display of ignorance, as you completely dismiss every factual argument I made in my post and hand-picked the only 3 parts that were my opinion. I did more than prove you wrong, I showed that your credibility is questionable, at best.

You have absolutely no evidence for a 40% rise except for the NOAA link you posted, which I showed you how you are incorrect and gave you a link to the raw data. You are mistaken about the pre-industrial data, because there WAS NONE, it did not exist!

Stop acting like we have some overwhelming evidence of a 40% increase - it is assumption based, not based on actual measurements of the atmosphere prior to 1974. Prior to 1974, there was no data from Mauna Lao. If I need to post a picture on here of the NOAA site with the RAW data and a big fat red line to show you're wrong, I'm happy to do so, but I feel it's completely unnecessary since you are capable of reading the data yourself.

Here is the link again in case you missed (or ignored) it: aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov...

Look at the data from 1974. The column for "10 yr ago" has -999.99 as a value. Why is that? BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DATA IN 1964!!!!!! It stays that way in the data until 1984, because that's the first time they had a measurement from 10 years prior. But I suppose you'll just ignore that too, and flounder away looking for another argument or another calculation to try and prove your super-smart superiority to the rest of the idiots out there.

A residence time calculation has nothing to do with you presenting inaccurate data and claims, and grossly misrepresenting the source you provided. You can be a fantastic mathematician with multiple PhDs, and still be a complete moron.

I went directly to the source YOU provided on multiple threads and didn't see any reference to 40%, and when I did the math (correctly) on the numbers provided by NOAA in the ACTUAL data they have, it's a 16% increase, not 40%. (400 - 333 = 67 / 400 * 100 = ~16%)

It wasn't a 20ppm increase every decade since the industrial revolution, and you have no data to back that up. In fact, the data you used to support your argument CLEARLY shows It was 10ppm 1974-1984 and gradually increased to 20ppm and has only been 20ppm for the last 20 years. 20 years is a blink of an eye in climate science and few people would venture to say that 20 or even 40 years is enough time to predict climate.

You have not once heard me defend pollution or destructive human activity and I don't support it. I don't use pseudo-science to stand behind those principles or defend opposing points of view. I do believe humans should be better stewards of our planet.

But don't accuse me of pseudo-science when you ignore what I post, falsify claims and misrepresent data, none of which I need to do for the sake of winning a stupid argument. It really takes away from what could be very valid points of yours, so maybe you want to re-think how you present your points.

Pay attention to your own sources and understand what you cite before you do so and you won't get burned.

~Namaste

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Great post to show the manipulation of mathematics and science to support an agenda based on greed.

Well done!

It highlights the one principal thought that everyone should keep in the forefront of their mind! It is only in the last few years of history have we been able to get accurate numbers and when we do, Science goes and fudges them anyway.

Ice core data is only valid for the location they were taken from.

P

Thanks P!

Keep up the great work, love your posts!

~Namaste

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Wow, what an awesome display of ignorance, as you completely dismiss every factual argument I made in my post and hand-picked the only 3 parts that were my opinion. I did more than prove you wrong, I showed that your credibility is questionable, at best.

..........


~Namaste

It is you who is displaying ignorance in this thread. Please kindly read through this entire thread before trying to bust down my credibility. Again, that question is answered in this thread. 280ppm to 400ppm is over a 40% rise in CO2 concentrations. These are the figures that the experts in field agree upon. No need to cite sources here because this has been covered in this thread. It is you who is too lazy to do the research yourself, instead you make a pseudoscience argument using math with bad numbers to try to break down my credibility.

Dr. Lazarus is still at FIT, another PHD who can back my claims up.

Until you can demonstrate a residence time calculation for CO2, then you have no business calling me ignorant on this issue.

We as a species are causing great destruction to this planet.

PS, you have yet to prove me wrong. Declarative arguments like that are nonsense and it is a tactic straight from the book to discredit people like me. The only way you will be able to prove your credibility to any scientist on this thread is with a residence time calculation

Once again I will do a little basic Math.

Pre Industrial CO2 count: 280ppm

Today's CO2 count: 400pm

Source: This thread, I will not cite this again for someone who is too lazy to read this entire thread.

400-280=120

(120/280)*100%= 42%........

Over a 40% rise in CO2 concentration since the industrial revolution.

Checkmate!

originally posted by: jrod
Once again I will do a little basic Math.

Pre Industrial CO2 count: 280ppm

Today's CO2 count: 400pm

Source: This thread, I will not cite this again for someone who is too lazy to read this entire thread.

400-280=120

(120/280)*100%= 42%........

Over a 40% rise in CO2 concentration since the industrial revolution.

Checkmate!

Bro . . . they changed the temperature numbers back today.

You should probably be concerned about the fact that the numbers were changed multiple times drastically affecting the historical temperature record in what appears to be an attempt to support the current models.

NASA has cancelled the launch of a second climate satellite after the first one managed a failure to launch.

Something is fishy appears to be going on.

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Like I've posted many times before, these threads are not about global warming to me. My position on global warming is a realistic one.

It is about separating fact from pseudoscience.

Over a 40% rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. FACT.

Source: This thread. Please kindly read through this thread. There is some good information with a lot of Brawndo arguments.....

a reply to: jrod

It seems clear you have completely ignored most of my links, especially to the ones that show the isotope breakdown of co2 in the atmosphere provided by IPCC and the raw data it uses to create its report.

www.nature.com...

That paper makes it clear that Anthropogenic co2 makes up 7% of co2 in the atmosphere and that is the highest estimate I could find. This one is based on ice core samples.

www.nature.com...

That paper makes it clear that they can't account for all of the Anthropogenic co2 that is supposed to be in the atmosphere.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

That paper again makes it clear that models don't match measurements. Although man has been putting 29b tons a year into the atmosphere for the last decade, the measurements don't show as much in the atmosphere as there should be.

Again, the IPCC clearly says 4-5% of co2 in the atmosphere is from burning fossil fuels. That is 20 PPM attributed to fossil fuels. Other man made activity adds another 8 PPM. (Not annually, actually right now, in the atmosphere and measurable) That is 28 PPM created from man and sitting in our atmoshphere according to the IPCC's data they used to create their report. If you (and reasonably so) say that 60% of mans co2 is reclaimed, and that takes the space of natural co2 being reclaimed, you still only have 60 PPM attributed to man. That clearly indicates the other 60 PPM is from non human sources.

The first article in Nature showed 7% of co2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic. 7% of 400 PPM is 28 PPM...hey, look at that...it adds up.

Now if you have information that can show that 120 PPM of the co2 in the atmosphere in anthropogenic, then please, by all means, enlighten me...

Even the IPCC admits they may need to redo their residence time calculations as anthropogenic co2 may be dissipating faster than models predict (Again, I currently have no quarrel with their average of 100 years, but if observations continue to show less co2 than models predict, that will have to be adjusted with new data):

www.ipcc.ch...

Atmospheric lifetime co2 5 to 200 yr c
c No single lifetime can be defined for CO2 because of the different rates of uptake by different removal processes.

So if these scholarly, published articles, and even direct links to the IPCC aren't enough to show you that 40% increase isn't all from man, I will just not bother discussing this subject with you further as you obviously have some type of fixation with your point of view.

For the record, I used to be pro anthropogenic warming. Initial data didn't give me any reason to disagree. I ate up an inconvenient truth like a hungry dog. However, as the years went on it became obvious that data was being distorted by unscientific bureaucrats with globalization in mind. I feel the IPCC intentionally distorts data to trick those who read their assessment without viewing the raw data.

I was also extremely pissed by the 97% of scientists agree with AGW articles that started floating around, because yes, 97% of scientists agree that man contributes to warming. However, lets look at an example of this failed poll: One published paper Cook and company said agreed with anthropogenic global warming showed that man contributed to .03 c of current warming....that greatly minimized the amount of warming man plays and contradicts Cook's view on how much warming he believes man has caused according to his site SkepticalScience.com. More bureaucracy screwing over science. People like Cook are attempting to bully newcomers into the field.

www.forbes.com...

wattsupwiththat.com... ore-86692

a reply to: raymundoko

Fail.

Show me a residence time calculation to prove your credentials.

Until then, no one will believe you have an advanced degree in this field.

a reply to: jrod

I've already called you out on that guy. I am not your monkey and have nothing to prove to you. I have made no claims which aren't backed up by legit peer reviewed papers and the IPCC itself. If I made some unscientific claim your childish request could be accommodated.

Again, me doing a residence time calculation is pointless and the fact you keep sticking to this straw man is rather pathetic.

What's more pathetic is your only strategy now is to attempt to discredit those who know enough to make you look foolish. The most pathetic part is I posted, what, 7?, links for you to look over and you replied with a straw man within 5 minutes...this is what the AGW crowd does. Ignore science all you want guy.

a reply to: raymundoko

Which guy have you called me out on?


Tactics straight from the book are what you guys are using.

Why are you guys trying to discredit my facts?

There is nothing childish about asking someone who claims to hold a master degree in atmosphere dynamics to do a simple residence time calculation. By defecting this raised flags about your claim.

40% rise on CO2 concentrations over a few hundred years is significant. It is ignorant to ignore this fact.