No question that co2 is a postive forcing

[ScienceRocks]

 

[BenNatuf]

Moderate ENSO, negative AO, PDO, solar variables, tropical cloud formations and to a miniscule level GHG's (likely not even measurable with todays tech) and maybe a few other things. CO2 over the last 400K years is irrelevant, the only measurements that matter are the holocene records as those are the conditions we live in that are being affected. However, that graph does not seem right at all in any event.

Using plant stomata to determine carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 15,000 years

CO2 record for the holocene, the booklet contains links to the actual studies which pretty much debunk the ice core records, which BTW were already kjnown to be only accurate to get something close to millenial averages in the first place.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Interesting data BenNatuf...

The Last 15,000 Years-- Reconsidered

Recent studies using plant stomata show that the currently-held view of predominantly stable CO2 levels (260-280 ppm) before the Industrial Revolution (1750 AD, i.e. 200 years B.P.) may be an inaccurate view.

CO2 levels appear to have regularly exceeded 280 ppm-- the average of CO2 concentrations across the Holocene interglacial period (last 11,000 years) appears to have been approximately 305 ppm.

Contrary to the prevailing notion of CO2 stability, CO2 swings of 20-50 ppm or more over timespans of 500-1000 years appear to be the norm-- not the exception.


Data from various stomata studies (ref. 10-20) show CO2 concentrations over the last 11,000 years varied between 260 and 340 ppm (average: 305 ppm). In contrast, the Dome C ice core record shows no significant variability and considerably lower overall CO2 levels (average: 270 ppm).


...
Even this shows that our current increase in co2 is somewhat above what the normal increase would be.

 

[mdn2000]

Old Crock, your the CO2 hypocrite, every year Old Crock creates a hundred times more CO2 than me. I do not own a swimming pool. Further Old Crock is wasting a hundred times more energy than I heating water just for his showers, further Old Crock is wasting more water than I washing clothes.

Further Old Crock cut down trees for twenty years.

Tell us how CO2 is the problem and not you Old Crock.

CO2, cannot, even in an experiment retain heat. Try it yourself. Shake up a bottle of Coke and let it get warm, take another unopened and let it get warm, put them both in the freezer and see which one is warmer the next day.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Interesting data BenNatuf...

The Last 15,000 Years-- Reconsidered

Recent studies using plant stomata show that the currently-held view of predominantly stable CO2 levels (260-280 ppm) before the Industrial Revolution (1750 AD, i.e. 200 years B.P.) may be an inaccurate view.

CO2 levels appear to have regularly exceeded 280 ppm-- the average of CO2 concentrations across the Holocene interglacial period (last 11,000 years) appears to have been approximately 305 ppm.

Contrary to the prevailing notion of CO2 stability, CO2 swings of 20-50 ppm or more over timespans of 500-1000 years appear to be the norm-- not the exception.


Data from various stomata studies (ref. 10-20) show CO2 concentrations over the last 11,000 years varied between 260 and 340 ppm (average: 305 ppm). In contrast, the Dome C ice core record shows no significant variability and considerably lower overall CO2 levels (average: 270 ppm).


...
Even this shows that our current increase in co2 is somewhat above what the normal increase would be.

This figure shows that Wagner's data shows a sharp increase to 330ppm at 11,260 years BP (years before 1950), staying there for 500 years, in disagreement with the Taylor Dome and Vostok ice-core records.

In deciding between these results, several items should be noted:

Firstly, ice-core CO2 measurements are direct measurements on air that has been enclosed in bubbles. On the other hand, stomatal density is an indirect measure. Experiments on stomata density showed that "the stomatal response to increasing atmospheric CO2 was identical to that induced by removing water from the plant roots" (Idso et al 1984). In other words, stomatal index data may not be the able to measure the atmospheric concentration as precisely as its proponents would like.

Secondly, several different ice-core data sets are essentially consistent. Artifacts do appear in earlier ice core records - mainly the Greenland drill sites where CO2 was depleted through a chemical reaction - but there are no such indications of this in the Taylor Dome ice core. In any event, this is a known phenomena, and one that can be accounted for. These records all indicate the CO2 concentration from 260 to 280 ppmv during the preindustrial Holocene.

Stomata data, on the other hand, do not show such agreement. For example Beerling et al (D. J. Beerling, H. H. Birks, F. I. Woodward, J. Quat. Sci. 10, 379 (1995)) report largely scattering proxy CO2 values from 225 to 310 ppmv between 9940 and 9600 14C-yr, in disagreement with the data presented by Wagner et al.

In summary, the skeptics claim that stomatal data falsify the concept of a relatively stable Holocene CO2 concentration of 270-280 ppmv until the Industrial Revolution. This claim is not justified.
Plant stomata show higher and more variable CO2 levels

Plant stomata frequency estimates of past [CO2] have large uncertainties (e.g. +/- 30-60 ppm; see a recent analysis of reconstruction uncertainties in Betula nana leaves)

The error bars around stomata reconstructed CO2 values tend to be +/-50ppm. See Figure 6 in Jessen et al 2005

Yes the same Jessen that was part of the data in the graph(period 3) in 2006.

 

[westwall]

Well, dingleberry, perhaps you should try listening to real science as presented by real scientists.

You mean the ones falsifying data all over the place, those frauds? Riiiiight. Intelligent people don't pay attention to frauds.

You mean liars like you impugning the names of real scientists. As time goes on, we will see just how much idiocy you have posted. Like that statement that the sea ice around Antarctica is three orders of magnitudes greater than normal, and the day you posted it, the ice there had a negative anamoly.

You are the fraud, Walleyes. You present arcticles from people with no degrees, and from political blogs. NASA, NOAA, USGS, and NAS all state just the opposite of what you post. As do the equivelent agencies and societies of every other nation.

I did not impugn a thing olfraud. THEY DID! They have perverted science for their own personal gain. Screw you and your mock outrage defending these pricks. And screw you too for being the hypocritical asshole you claim everyone else is. I don't damage the planet with my work...YOU DO! You are a fraud in every aspect of your worthless pitiful life.

 

[westwall]

You gotta admit, right wingers explaining science is pretty damn entertaining.

You are certainly not the one to be speaking here deanie. Your grasp of science is so pathetic I'd rather not go down that road for fear of embarassing you.

 

[Old Rocks]

Stomatal data is interesting, but not as accurate as direct determination from ice cores. And, for that period, we have ice cores from both Greenland and Anarctica, and they are in good agreement. I would have to say that is far more reliable than the stomatal data.

 

[Old Rocks]

You mean the ones falsifying data all over the place, those frauds? Riiiiight. Intelligent people don't pay attention to frauds.

You mean liars like you impugning the names of real scientists. As time goes on, we will see just how much idiocy you have posted. Like that statement that the sea ice around Antarctica is three orders of magnitudes greater than normal, and the day you posted it, the ice there had a negative anamoly.

You are the fraud, Walleyes. You present arcticles from people with no degrees, and from political blogs. NASA, NOAA, USGS, and NAS all state just the opposite of what you post. As do the equivelent agencies and societies of every other nation.

I did not impugn a thing olfraud. THEY DID! They have perverted science for their own personal gain. Screw you and your mock outrage defending these pricks. And screw you too for being the hypocritical asshole you claim everyone else is. I don't damage the planet with my work...YOU DO! You are a fraud in every aspect of your worthless pitiful life.

My, my, all the scientists in the world that disagree with Walleyes are corrupt and frauds. Now does anyone see any kind of problem with that statement?

 

[Muhammed]

You mean liars like you impugning the names of real scientists. As time goes on, we will see just how much idiocy you have posted. Like that statement that the sea ice around Antarctica is three orders of magnitudes greater than normal, and the day you posted it, the ice there had a negative anamoly.

You are the fraud, Walleyes. You present arcticles from people with no degrees, and from political blogs. NASA, NOAA, USGS, and NAS all state just the opposite of what you post. As do the equivelent agencies and societies of every other nation.

I did not impugn a thing olfraud. THEY DID! They have perverted science for their own personal gain. Screw you and your mock outrage defending these pricks. And screw you too for being the hypocritical asshole you claim everyone else is. I don't damage the planet with my work...YOU DO! You are a fraud in every aspect of your worthless pitiful life.

My, my, all the scientists in the world that disagree with Walleyes are corrupt and frauds. Now does anyone see any kind of problem with that statement?

Are you in denial that the climategate emails are real?

Or are you just too fucking stupid to understand the context?

 

[Old Rocks]

No, I understand the context very well. And I understand what one can do taking statements out of context.

Were it just the scientists in Brittain making claims and gathering evidence, you might have some kind of case. However, it is the scientist in all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities that have made statements and presented evidence. That is called an overwhelming consensus.

 

[westwall]

You mean liars like you impugning the names of real scientists. As time goes on, we will see just how much idiocy you have posted. Like that statement that the sea ice around Antarctica is three orders of magnitudes greater than normal, and the day you posted it, the ice there had a negative anamoly.

You are the fraud, Walleyes. You present arcticles from people with no degrees, and from political blogs. NASA, NOAA, USGS, and NAS all state just the opposite of what you post. As do the equivelent agencies and societies of every other nation.

I did not impugn a thing olfraud. THEY DID! They have perverted science for their own personal gain. Screw you and your mock outrage defending these pricks. And screw you too for being the hypocritical asshole you claim everyone else is. I don't damage the planet with my work...YOU DO! You are a fraud in every aspect of your worthless pitiful life.

My, my, all the scientists in the world that disagree with Walleyes are corrupt and frauds. Now does anyone see any kind of problem with that statement?

ALL THE SCIENTISTS IN THE WORLD Are you sure you want to keep following that failed assertion?

 

[westwall]

No, I understand the context very well. And I understand what one can do taking statements out of context.

Were it just the scientists in Brittain making claims and gathering evidence, you might have some kind of case. However, it is the scientist in all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities that have made statements and presented evidence. That is called an overwhelming consensus.

NIWA proves you WRONG!

 

[IanC]

Stomatal data is interesting, but not as accurate as direct determination from ice cores. And, for that period, we have ice cores from both Greenland and Anarctica, and they are in good agreement. I would have to say that is far more reliable than the stomatal data.

except if the evidence was reversed. then you would be all over it.

 

[BenNatuf]

Interesting data BenNatuf...

The Last 15,000 Years-- Reconsidered

Recent studies using plant stomata show that the currently-held view of predominantly stable CO2 levels (260-280 ppm) before the Industrial Revolution (1750 AD, i.e. 200 years B.P.) may be an inaccurate view.

CO2 levels appear to have regularly exceeded 280 ppm-- the average of CO2 concentrations across the Holocene interglacial period (last 11,000 years) appears to have been approximately 305 ppm.

Contrary to the prevailing notion of CO2 stability, CO2 swings of 20-50 ppm or more over timespans of 500-1000 years appear to be the norm-- not the exception.


Data from various stomata studies (ref. 10-20) show CO2 concentrations over the last 11,000 years varied between 260 and 340 ppm (average: 305 ppm). In contrast, the Dome C ice core record shows no significant variability and considerably lower overall CO2 levels (average: 270 ppm).


...
Even this shows that our current increase in co2 is somewhat above what the normal increase would be.

Yes it does, but a caution would be that the entire holocene has not yet been mapped and the period that would be most relevent during and after the holocene maxima is one of those that has not. There is a study in the link that puts the average close to 333ppmv and a high around 400ppmv. Not sure of its veracity or whether there's enouph data included in it to validate the claim, but it is there.

The point I make with these studies is about the models, which use a static level of 270-280ppmv (whichever they plug in) to model past climate and validate their "predictions". If in fact the CO2 levels were as variable as the stomatal index suggests (and it would appear to be more accurate than ice core data) then the climate sensitivity vartiable in the models is WAY to high. Something Spencer and Lindzen have been saying for years. If that is the case, there just is no way that CO2 could be the culprit the warmist claim it to be, and their models are all a bunch of uncallibrated garbage.

 

[BenNatuf]

Interesting data BenNatuf...

The Last 15,000 Years-- Reconsidered

Recent studies using plant stomata show that the currently-held view of predominantly stable CO2 levels (260-280 ppm) before the Industrial Revolution (1750 AD, i.e. 200 years B.P.) may be an inaccurate view.

CO2 levels appear to have regularly exceeded 280 ppm-- the average of CO2 concentrations across the Holocene interglacial period (last 11,000 years) appears to have been approximately 305 ppm.

Contrary to the prevailing notion of CO2 stability, CO2 swings of 20-50 ppm or more over timespans of 500-1000 years appear to be the norm-- not the exception.


Data from various stomata studies (ref. 10-20) show CO2 concentrations over the last 11,000 years varied between 260 and 340 ppm (average: 305 ppm). In contrast, the Dome C ice core record shows no significant variability and considerably lower overall CO2 levels (average: 270 ppm).


...
Even this shows that our current increase in co2 is somewhat above what the normal increase would be.

This figure shows that Wagner's data shows a sharp increase to 330ppm at 11,260 years BP (years before 1950), staying there for 500 years, in disagreement with the Taylor Dome and Vostok ice-core records.

In deciding between these results, several items should be noted:

Firstly, ice-core CO2 measurements are direct measurements on air that has been enclosed in bubbles. On the other hand, stomatal density is an indirect measure. Experiments on stomata density showed that "the stomatal response to increasing atmospheric CO2 was identical to that induced by removing water from the plant roots" (Idso et al 1984). In other words, stomatal index data may not be the able to measure the atmospheric concentration as precisely as its proponents would like.

Secondly, several different ice-core data sets are essentially consistent. Artifacts do appear in earlier ice core records - mainly the Greenland drill sites where CO2 was depleted through a chemical reaction - but there are no such indications of this in the Taylor Dome ice core. In any event, this is a known phenomena, and one that can be accounted for. These records all indicate the CO2 concentration from 260 to 280 ppmv during the preindustrial Holocene.

Stomata data, on the other hand, do not show such agreement. For example Beerling et al (D. J. Beerling, H. H. Birks, F. I. Woodward, J. Quat. Sci. 10, 379 (1995)) report largely scattering proxy CO2 values from 225 to 310 ppmv between 9940 and 9600 14C-yr, in disagreement with the data presented by Wagner et al.

In summary, the skeptics claim that stomatal data falsify the concept of a relatively stable Holocene CO2 concentration of 270-280 ppmv until the Industrial Revolution. This claim is not justified.
Plant stomata show higher and more variable CO2 levels

Plant stomata frequency estimates of past [CO2] have large uncertainties (e.g. +/- 30-60 ppm; see a recent analysis of reconstruction uncertainties in Betula nana leaves)

The error bars around stomata reconstructed CO2 values tend to be +/-50ppm. See Figure 6 in Jessen et al 2005

Yes the same Jessen that was part of the data in the graph(period 3) in 2006.

I have no doubt that more data is needed and that this research should be advanced. But the complaints of the warmist and their adherance tom ice core data is as "misplaced" as they complain. It is a well known fact that ice core data over 2000YO is only accurate enough due to mixing, ice depth, and pressure to discern something close to a milennial or multi millenial averages (centenial and multi centenial in more recent times---say last 1500 years). The stomatal index can be accurate on decadal scales. There are also pollen and sediment studies that are much more in agreement with the stomatal index than they are with ice cores. And it makes sence given that a thawing earth emits CO2 into the atmosphere when the earth warms CO2 levels should increase. These studies confirm that coupling and the warmists will do all they can do discredit them and hold to there precious ice cores.

Gavin Schmidt tried the same shit with Scaffeta and Wilsons 2009 study showing solar variables account for about 69% of current warming, Scaffeta's critique of his critique is rather scathing and he basically sent schmidt back to school. Adrew Dressler tried to discrdeit Roy Spencer's new study on the tropical cloud link and he got schooled by Spencer. The arguments in the scientific community are hot and heavy right now and the warmists are in defence mode, their pet theory is crumbling around them, and the money and prestige that go with it is what they're fighting for.

I also don't doubt that man has added somewhat to the atmospheric CO2 it however would appear that Pielke and the "industry stooges" were more right than the grant stooges were and that mans contribution is not the 110(+)ppmv that the grant stooges and IPCC circle of freinds claimed. Could be as little as 30ppmv, could be as much as 80ppmv. Although the earyhs carbon sinks may have compensated and the current level could be exactly what it would have been naturally anyway. I await more studies that map the holocene maxima to be able to form a more informed opinion.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, I understand the context very well. And I understand what one can do taking statements out of context.

Were it just the scientists in Brittain making claims and gathering evidence, you might have some kind of case. However, it is the scientist in all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities that have made statements and presented evidence. That is called an overwhelming consensus.

NIWA proves you WRONG!

NIWA - Climate
Latest projects
Assessment of crop and tree species growing potential using climate, soil and topographic information

Impacts of Climate Change on River Flows and Floods

Regional Modelling of New Zealand Climate

Risk of Drought and Extreme Winds under Climate Change

 

[westwall]

No, I understand the context very well. And I understand what one can do taking statements out of context.

Were it just the scientists in Brittain making claims and gathering evidence, you might have some kind of case. However, it is the scientist in all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities that have made statements and presented evidence. That is called an overwhelming consensus.

NIWA proves you WRONG!

NIWA - Climate
Latest projects
Assessment of crop and tree species growing potential using climate, soil and topographic information

Impacts of Climate Change on River Flows and Floods

Regional Modelling of New Zealand Climate

Risk of Drought and Extreme Winds under Climate Change

Yeah sure olfruad. This is what NIWA had to say in their statement of defence

"In para 4, NIWA denies it has any obligation to use the best available data or best scientific techniques, while conceding that it has statutory duties to pursue excellence and to perform its functions efficiently and effectively."

This is the "quality" of science you ascribe to. Congrats you're a moron.


New Zealand ? Where did that warming go? « JoNova

Climate Conversation Group What’s left of the NIWA case?

 

[IanC]

west is right. the govt climate organization in New Zealand simply gave up when their stonewall attempts failed. makes you wonder how much difficulty other temperature collection agencies would have if they had to answer probing questions from informed auditors. it wouldn't be a pretty sight.

 

[ScienceRocks]

1995 1.94
1996 1.22
1997 1.93
1998 2.97
1999 0.91
2000 1.75
2001 1.57
2002 2.59
2003 2.30
2004 1.57
2005 2.53
2006 1.72
2007 2.18
2008 1.66
2009 1.89
2010 2.3