Do the authors propose a physical mechanism for this phenomenon? Seems to me that all the physics analogues (electronics, mechanical resonance, …) that I am aware of have exactly the opposite effect when coupling is increased–the tendency is to lock in the synchronicity. Or perhaps I don’t understand how they are using this word.

After the work by M&M with the Mann hockey stick, no scientist or group of scientists should expect respect, if they do not publish their raw data.

Looking at the large range of values found in the luxembourg study, the comment by Bacastow that the Mauna Loa measurements were “edited” seem quite plausible. Pales & Keeling said that large portions of the raw data were rejected, leaving just a small fraction to be subjected to averaging techniques. This shouldn’t be a surprise, since the Scripps program to monitor CO2 in the atmosphere was conceived and initiated by Dr. Roger Revelle (Revelle evasion factor). Pales & Keeting say “Revelle foresaw the geochemical implications of the rise in atmospheric CO2 resulting from fossil fuel combustion, and he sought means to ensure that this ‘large scale geophysical experiment‘ .. was documented”. Pales & Keeting continue “he inspired us to keep in sight the objectives which he had originally persuaded us to accept.”

Does this sound like true, unbiased research? All they were doing was measuring C02. Why would they need inspiration to keep the objectives in sight? What were the objectives? Why the need for persuasion? What’s so hard about measuring C02, and reporting all the data.

>> Have you ever thought that something might be wrong with this study?

They reported their raw data. Operating a FIR instrument is simple, so there is nothing to go wrong.

>> It’s contradicted by every other study of CO2 in the atmosphere out there.

But they don’t publish their raw data. Besides, we’re talking about a very small number of testing sites.

>> Aren’t they measuring CO2 in the middle of industrial Europe? Don’t you think that’s a bad idea?

You see, you say this because of your AGW premise that man is the main source of C02. In reality, man’s C02 output is dwarfed by natural causes. For example, the ocean, volcanoes, etc. Now, they are measuring C02 in the middle of the ocean, on top of one volcanoe, right next to an active volcanoe, only when the wind blows in from the sea. That IS A BAD IDEA. When the wind blows from the land, the readings go way down. In the luxembourg study, they reported that there was no C02 dome over cities.

This discussion exposes the fatal flaw in the whole AGW idea: We cannot determine the global C02 level by measuring it one place. What would you think if we measured the temperature in only one place, and said that was the global average?

Clearly, the creators of that program were AGWers and everyone working there has a job that depends on the correct conclusion

Way to bash the intergrity of scientists you don’t even know–going back 30 years even.

But contradicted by the 2005 Luxembourg study

Have you ever thought that something might be wrong with this study? It’s contradicted by every other study of CO2 in the atmosphere out there. Aren’t they measuring CO2 in the middle of industrial Europe? Don’t you think that’s a bad idea?

Ok, I understand.

>> For what it’s worth I trust the Mauna Loa measurements.

They have to “adjust” the figures for the active volcanoe right next to them. They only take measurements when the wind is blowing from the sea (which implicitly indicates the source of C02. The weather is another explanation for the seasonal variation. There have been reports of only reporting the data that fits. Clearly, the creators of that program were AGWers, and everyone working there has a job that depends on the correct conclusion. That said, I still believe that C02 levels are probably increasing. My hypothesis: Sun warms oceans, Oceans outgas C02.

>> They are matched by measurements at Scripps, Southern California; Cape Grim, Tasmania and Alaska all showing rises in CO2 concentration.

But contradicted by the 2005 Luxembourg study, which found (contrary to Mauna Loa) that C02 goes up in the summer, not down. What’s more, they saw no upward trend over the 3 year period, contrary to Mauna Loa.

>> Is it the annual change?

Yes, our calculation agreed.

>> Now I’m not saying anything about AGW.

That seems reasonable, since it seems only to indicate that man is burning hydrocarbons, which is not in dispute.

>> oceans take out CO2 as dissolved inorganic carbon but has relatively little effect on oxygen levels.

Henry’s law applies to Oxygen as well, so it’s the same.

>> I was using the combined oxygen and carbon cycles to illustrate why I’m presently convinced by the hypothesis that burning fossil fuels is a major contributor to the present perturbation of the atmospheric CO2 levels.

This is where I’m losing you. This does not change the fact that there are huge natural processes going on, and that the AGW premise that all is in balance, but for man, is completely false. It’s more of a religious statement, and completely indefensible. The calculation that I did was static, assuming no reaction from the biosphere. How long have you been measuring Oxygen? You are probably seeing a localized effect. Measuring the global O level is extremely complicated, maybe unknowable. And if we do calculations for C02 similar to what we did for Oxygen:

Number of Litre of CO2 in atmosphere is: 5.5 x 10^16mole x 22.4L/mole = 1.23 x 10^18 L
CO2 produced is: 9.395 x 10^11L of gasoline/y x 1164.8 L of CO2/L of gasoline = 1.1 x 10^15 L of CO2/y
The Carbon Dioxide content of the atmosphere would annually change by 0.000027%

So, in a static analysis and pretending Henry’s law doesn’t exist, raising the level by 30% should have taken 372 years!

Yet, the AGWers claim that it happened in only some 60 years. Clearly, this MIMO system is not easy to measure and there are other forces at work here. And Henry’s law does exist. Everytime we open up a soda pop, we should say: Henry’s law does exist, AGW is impossible.

>> I.e., an error of only 0.5 ppm on the O2 content drastically changes any correlation with CO2 content, which has its own measurement problems.

Exactly. This is the kind of measurement that would change if you breathed on it.

Sam, you are absolutely correct. This kind of oversimplification is at the heart of AGW.

Refining of metals from ore would presumably put O2 into the atmosphere. Unless the O2 is consumed by some other reaction in the refining process that I’m not aware of.

Hate to be snarky, but apparently there’s lots you’re not aware of. Iron is refined by using coke (i.e. carbon) to pull the oxygen from the ore out producing CO2 and metal. The same is true for most other metals. In a few cases, chiefly aluminum, the metal is produced electrolytically, though even then carbon electrodes are used which produce CO2 and only the energy in excess of what carbon can provide comes from the electric current. And even then the electricity could come from carbon burning power plants. Though in the past a lot of aluminum plants were located near hydroelectric power plants which wouldn’t use coal or oil.

And even still, the surface isn’t warming anyway, according to the SSTs. As I went into more detail in #320, I plotted the ERSSTs as absolutes for the temp average of all 2×2 grids for 152 years. The mean was +18.32 C for either 1854-2006 or 1961-1990. There was a 0 trend for the min, +.16 for the mean and +.32 for the max.

Here’s the mean for start and end over either base period:

1834: +.06
2006: +.22

I attribute any rise to changing from ships/bouys to satties and/or margin of error.

So I’m done discussing this! There’s nothing to discuss. The science is settled!

Nonsense? Here are 26 studies that confirm that the AGW assertion that the C02 atmospheric life is 150 years is COMPLETE nonsense.

Based on natural carbon-14
Craig [1957] 7 +/- 3
Revelle & Suess [1957] 7
Arnold & Anderson [1957] 10
including living and dead biosphere
(Siegenthaler, 1989) 4-9
Craig [1958] 7 +/- 5
Bolin & Eriksson [1959] 5
Broecker [1963], recalc. by Broecker & Peng [1974] 8
Craig [1963] 5-15
Keeling [1973b] 7
Broecker [1974] 9.2
Oeschger et al. [1975] 6-9
Keeling [1979] 7.53
Peng et al. [1979] 7.6 (5.5-9.4)
Siegenthaler et al. [1980] 7.5
Lal & Suess [1983] 3-25
Siegenthaler [1983] 7.9-10.6
Kratz et al. [1983] 6.7

Based on Suess Effect
Ferguson [1958] 2 (1-8)
Bacastow & Keeling [1973] 6.3-7.0

Based on bomb carbon-14
Bien & Suess [1967] >10
Münnich & Roether [1967] 5.4
Nydal [1968] 5-10
Young & Fairhall [1968] 4-6
Rafter & O’Brian [1970] 12
Machta (1972) 2
Broecker et al. [1980a] 6.2-8.8
Stuiver [1980] 6.8
Quay & Stuiver [1980] 7.5
Delibrias [1980] 6.0
Druffel & Suess [1983] 12.5
Siegenthaler [1983] 6.99-7.54

Based on radon-222
Broecker & Peng [1974] 8
Peng et al. [1979] 7.8-13.2
Peng et al. [1983] 8.4

Based on solubility data
Murray (1992) 5.4

Based on carbon-13/carbon-12 mass balance
Segalstad (1992) 5.4

Unfortunately for you, the AGW idea requires a lifetime of 100+ years. Evidence has falsified the idea.

>> You did not answer or understand the isotope evidence.

Yes, I did. You are claiming a conclusion that is not backed up by measurements. Segalstad explains: “CO2 from hydrocarbon combustion and from biospheric materials have delta-13-C values near -26 permil. “Natural” CO2 has delta-13-C values of -7 permil in equilibrium with CO2 dissolved in the hydrosphere and in marine calcium carbonate. Mixing these two atmospheric CO2 components: IPCC’s 21% CO2 from fossil fuel burning + 79% “natural” CO2 should give a delta-13-C of the present atmospheric CO2 of approximately -11 permil, calculated by isotopic mass balance (Segalstad, 1992; 1996).

This atmospheric CO2 delta-13-C mixing value of -11 permil to be expected from IPCC’s model is not found in actual measurements. Keeling et al. (1989) reported a measured atmospheric delta-13-C value of -7.489 permil in December 1978, decreasing to -7.807 permil in December 1988 (the significance of all their digits not justified). These values are close to the value of the natural atmospheric CO2 reservoir, far from the delta-13-C value of -11 permil expected from the IPCC model.

From the measured delta-13-C values in atmospheric CO2 we can by isotopic mass balance also calculate that the amount of fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is equal to or less than 4%, supporting the carbon-14 “Suess Effect” evidence. Hence the IPCC model is neither supported by radioactive nor stable carbon isotope evidence (Segalstad, 1992; 1993; 1996).”

>> You conflated modern CO2 measuring capabilities with older ones known to be in error.

I referenced direct C02 measurements from that time, performed by scientists using a standardized method, published in scientific papers. Neither the IPCC, nor you, can give us any scientific reason why these measurements are not valid.

Instead, you give us a bad C02 proxy for 1940. Ice Cores are very inaccurate. There are significant problems associated with testing trace quantities of atmospheric gases. One is the adsorption and desorption of gases on sample system surfaces. The second is Knudsen diffusion. The effect of this would be that the gas analyses would show reduced variation over time. The evidence of this inaccuracy can be seen by looking at Leaf stomata indices (SI), a good proxy for C02 concentrations. SI shows much higher C02 levels AND more variation. This conforms with current C02 measurement variability. More specifically, the vostok study has been exposed as a scientific fraud. They cherry picked and massaged data to come up with their reconstruction.

Nearly all the C02 measurements (90,000 data points) were obtained in rural areas without large industrial contamination. The measurements had a systematic error ranging from 1% to 3%. The Pettenkofer method was developed from eleven principal measuring techniques (including gravimetric, titrimetric, volumetric and manometric). The IPCC has ignored these chemical methods despite being the standard in analytical chemistry for 100 years, rejecting the data as faulty and inaccurate, but providing no scientific support for that view. The Pettenkofer process was used universally as a standard and was accurate enough to develop all the modern knowledge of medicine, biology and physiology (photosynthesis, respiration end energy metabolism).

Based on these measurements, we know that the C02 level was 420 in 1940, contrary to AGW propoganda.

>> You claimed that all carbon from FF went into the atmosphere, then was pushed in to the ocean and biosphere very quickly only to be replaced with some unknown natural CO2 source.

Huh? There is a natural carbon cycle that maintains the atmospheric C02 levels. C02 in the atmosphere is analogous to water flowing in a river.

>> In short, you didn’t do very well at all.

In short, back at ya.

Anyway, I’m based in the UK and if there are any UK residents, or visitors from anywhere else who would like to visit and see and debate the work being done then please feel free to contact me. I keep an open door policy in my lab.