Comments on: Top Fifteen Reasons for Withholding Data or Code

By: Co-Opting the US Department of Energy « Climate Audit

Co-Opting the US Department of Energy « Climate Audit — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 22:31:31 +0000

[...] at CA in October 2005 here. Earlier in February 2005, Jones had famously refused Warwick Hughes as follows: Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. [...]

By: We Have 25 Years Invested in This Work… « Climate Audit

We Have 25 Years Invested in This Work… « Climate Audit — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 17:23:32 +0000

[...] of you may recall the memorable climate science phrase: We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when [...]

By: Brooks Hurd

Brooks Hurd — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:31:17 +0000

The AGW team bases their beliefs on two premises. First, that atmospheric CO2 levels have increased dramatically during mankind’s industrialization. Second, that average temperatures have increased in a direct relationship to the increase in CO2 levels.

It would appear that the Jawarowski and Wagner papers undercut the first premise of the AGW proponants. One major underlying assumption of AGW is that CO2 levels were much lower in pre-industrial times.

Clearly the Mann, Jones, and Crowley use of proxy data to determine temperature is open to question. The assumed temperature trends which have lead to Kyoto are certainly highly suspect.

By: John G. Bell

John G. Bell — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 20:40:28 +0000

Jerry, thanks. I didn’t catch that.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=129389#N0x84be8e8.0x85a08e8

OT- Limestone formation, sedimentation, extracts carbon from the sea. Does this occur at a uniform rate? Could sea and atmospheric levels of CO2 be related to oceanic sedimentation rates?

By: JerryB

JerryB — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:42:02 +0000

John G.,

Other than to mention that Wagner et al 2002 addresses some of your questions, there is not much that I could add to the topic.

By: John G. Bell

John G. Bell — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:34:12 +0000

Couldn’t Wagner’s method be used to look at the past several thousand years? Why not use it to look at more recent times?

By: John G. Bell

John G. Bell — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:23:01 +0000

Re #19: JerryB, Reference 13 in the paper, Wagner’s work on Holocene CO2, I’ve been trying to figure out how much confidence one can have stomatal frequency as proxy for CO2 concentrations alone. Wagner in the 2004 paper shows a wordwide phenomenon but couldn’t a global average decrease in humidity or an increase in temperature, windspeed or some other factor that increases evaporation and also drive stomatal frequency down? Wagner reads like a methodical and rigorous fellow. The basic idea has a touch of genius in it.

Even if CO2 was higher back in the Holocene, we don’t know what the sun’s luminosity was back then.

The nut content in AGW crowd would make any squirrel happy. Wagner’s work, if correct, doesn’t bury them but does dig a hole. Does his stuff hold up? Any other methods out there that give us a Holocene CO2 chronology?

By: JerryB

JerryB — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 15:26:39 +0000

Fred,

A short paper at http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm may be of interest.

By: Fred Harwood

Fred Harwood — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 15:02:16 +0000

Re: 2
“… one other factor – co2 derived from Ice cores – the limit seems 280 ppm, from “uncracked” ice which means ice that was not under internal stress due to dissolved volatiles. That suggests CO2 measurements are not of historical CO2 levels but merely the CO2 saturation level of Ice at surface pressures and temperatures. Might be worth following up I think.”

I’m interested in research on the “problem” with ice cores and low levels of CO2. Suggestions, please.

By: William Pearce

William Pearce — Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:36:10 +0000

Mr Mann & Co. “SAME CIRCUS DIFFERENT CLOWNS”