The truth at last

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Paraphrasing. "Not one credible person disagrees with me.
Anyone who disagrees with me is not credible."
That's not paraphrasing, that's putting words in my mouth. It
has nothing to do with agreeing with me and everything to do
with being a credible interpreter of fact.

So I've been looking for data to help me make up my mind and
haven't been able to find it.

Since you've obviously made up your mind I assume you've
found it.

How much CO2 is naturally produced in a year? How
much are humans producing? What is the total amount
of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Seriously,

Pre-industrial age concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere ~280 ppm,
in 2005 it was 379 ppm. The natural range as measured over the last
650,000 years is 180 - 300 ppm.

You can get up to speed he

http://www.ipcc.ch/

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mar 13, 10:45 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Paraphrasing. "Not one credible person disagrees with me.
Anyone who disagrees with me is not credible."
That's not paraphrasing, that's putting words in my mouth. It
has nothing to do with agreeing with me and everything to do
with being a credible interpreter of fact.

So I've been looking for data to help me make up my mind and
haven't been able to find it.

Since you've obviously made up your mind I assume you've
found it.

How much CO2 is naturally produced in a year? How
much are humans producing? What is the total amount
of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Seriously,

Pre-industrial age concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere ~280 ppm,
in 2005 it was 379 ppm. The natural range as measured over the last
650,000 years is 180 - 300 ppm.

That didn't answer my questions (what amount of CO2 is
generated from natural vs human sources), but I'll look at the URL.

Another question for you in the meantime: If global warming
started after the industrial revolution, why did the glaciers
begin receding before then?
- Ken

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
How much CO2 is naturally produced in a year? How
much are humans producing? What is the total amount
of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Pre-industrial age concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere ~280 ppm,
in 2005 it was 379 ppm. The natural range as measured over the last
650,000 years is 180 - 300 ppm.

That didn't answer my questions (what amount of CO2 is
generated from natural vs human sources), but I'll look at the URL.

I don't know, but if the historical, all-time high before the
industrial age is ~300 ppm and there is now 379 ppm (and growing)
I'd venture a wild guess and say some of it anyway. Maybe one of
these days we can talk the CO2 molecules into wearing little name
tags while we count them so we can tell "natural" from "human". ;-)

Of greater concern is the rate of growth of greenhouse gases. Even
though there are variations in the yearly growth rates the growth
rate since 1960 is unprecedented in world history and increasing.

Another question for you in the meantime: If global warming
started after the industrial revolution, why did the glaciers
begin receding before then?

Natural causes ? I'm just guessing.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mar 13, 12:46 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
wrote:
That didn't answer my questions (what amount of CO2 is
generated from natural vs human sources), but I'll look at the URL.

I don't know, but if the historical, all-time high before the
industrial age is ~300 ppm and there is now 379 ppm (and growing)
I'd venture a wild guess and say some of it anyway.

I'm certain it's "some of it". I'd feel better if I knew relative
percentages.


Another question for you in the meantime: If global warming
started after the industrial revolution, why did the glaciers
begin receding before then?

Natural causes ? I'm just guessing.

Yeah, that's not very comforting. If the glaciers have been
receding for 150-200 years, but CO2 has only started
increasing the last 40 years is it possible that you are
attacking a symptom and not the cause of the warming?
- Ken

wrote:
On Mar 13, 12:46 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
wrote:
That didn't answer my questions (what amount of CO2 is
generated from natural vs human sources), but I'll look at the URL.
I don't know, but if the historical, all-time high before the
industrial age is ~300 ppm and there is now 379 ppm (and growing)
I'd venture a wild guess and say some of it anyway.

I'm certain it's "some of it". I'd feel better if I knew relative
percentages.


Another question for you in the meantime: If global warming
started after the industrial revolution, why did the glaciers
begin receding before then?
Natural causes ? I'm just guessing.

Yeah, that's not very comforting. If the glaciers have been
receding for 150-200 years, but CO2 has only started
increasing the last 40 years is it possible that you are
attacking a symptom and not the cause of the warming?
- Ken


Glaciers have been receding for longer than 200 years. Exit Glacier
near Seward, AK has a record of glacial positions that extend far down
the valley toward Resurrection Bay. The glacial positions noted extend
back more than 500 years.

Ken Fortenberry wrote in news:wcDJh.7140
:

I don't know, but if the historical, all-time high before the
industrial age is ~300 ppm and there is now 379 ppm (and growing)
I'd venture a wild guess and say some of it anyway. Maybe one of
these days we can talk the CO2 molecules into wearing little name
tags while we count them so we can tell "natural" from "human". ;-)


I can't find any reviews of the physics underlying the ice core data, but
the idea that we can melt ice and "know" the CO2 history of the planet
grates on me.

Can anyone in the know tell me for certain that there wouldn't be Fickian
diffusion of the gas throughout the core over the course of hundreds of
thousands of years. Even very slow diffusion adds up, and it will smooth
out the bumps in the CO2 record, flattening out highs and lows.

I honestly don't know the answer, but it certainly is one of the things I'd
ask about if I were refereeing. I'd almost guarantee that the
climatologists who wrote the original Nature paper (cited more than 1,200
times!) don't know, either, and neither would the climatologists solicited
for peer review.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On Mar 13, 4:17 pm, Scott Seidman wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote in news:wcDJh.7140
:

I don't know, but if the historical, all-time high before the
industrial age is ~300 ppm and there is now 379 ppm (and growing)
I'd venture a wild guess and say some of it anyway. Maybe one of
these days we can talk the CO2 molecules into wearing little name
tags while we count them so we can tell "natural" from "human". ;-)

I can't find any reviews of the physics underlying the ice core data, but
the idea that we can melt ice and "know" the CO2 history of the planet
grates on me.

Can anyone in the know tell me for certain that there wouldn't be Fickian
diffusion of the gas throughout the core over the course of hundreds of
thousands of years. Even very slow diffusion adds up, and it will smooth
out the bumps in the CO2 record, flattening out highs and lows.

I honestly don't know the answer, but it certainly is one of the things I'd
ask about if I were refereeing. I'd almost guarantee that the
climatologists who wrote the original Nature paper (cited more than 1,200
times!) don't know, either, and neither would the climatologists solicited
for peer review.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

I've been looking for reviews of that too. Let me know if you find
it,
I haven't had any luck.
- Ken

" wrote in
ups.com:

On Mar 13, 4:17 pm, Scott Seidman wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote in
news:wcDJh.7140 :

I don't know, but if the historical, all-time high before the
industrial age is ~300 ppm and there is now 379 ppm (and growing)
I'd venture a wild guess and say some of it anyway. Maybe one of
these days we can talk the CO2 molecules into wearing little name
tags while we count them so we can tell "natural" from "human". ;-)

I can't find any reviews of the physics underlying the ice core data,
but the idea that we can melt ice and "know" the CO2 history of the
planet grates on me.

Can anyone in the know tell me for certain that there wouldn't be
Fickian diffusion of the gas throughout the core over the course of
hundreds of thousands of years. Even very slow diffusion adds up,
and it will smooth out the bumps in the CO2 record, flattening out
highs and lows.

I honestly don't know the answer, but it certainly is one of the
things I'd ask about if I were refereeing. I'd almost guarantee that
the climatologists who wrote the original Nature paper (cited more
than 1,200 times!) don't know, either, and neither would the
climatologists solicited for peer review.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

I've been looking for reviews of that too. Let me know if you find
it,
I haven't had any luck.
- Ken


Wouldn't it be a hoot to find out that the assumptions underlying the
analysis were flawed?

Happens all the time. In fact, decades of "eat your spinach so you'll
get strong" were all based upon a misplaced decimal point in a report on
the iron content in spinach.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On Mar 13, 4:51 pm, Scott Seidman wrote:
" wrote
I've been looking for reviews of that too. Let me know if you find
it,
I haven't had any luck.
- Ken

Wouldn't it be a hoot to find out that the assumptions underlying the
analysis were flawed?

Happens all the time. In fact, decades of "eat your spinach so you'll
get strong" were all based upon a misplaced decimal point in a report on
the iron content in spinach.

I'm relatively sure there is a smoothing of the actual original CO2
content (peak/valley reduction). It would be interesting if you
could figure out whether there is an overall offset difference over
time. So data from 10K years ago is over/underestimated by 10%,
100K years ago by 50%, etc. I'm not sure how you would ever
figure that out without a secondary data source.
- Ken

" wrote in
ups.com:

On Mar 13, 4:17 pm, Scott Seidman wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote in
news:wcDJh.7140 :

I don't know, but if the historical, all-time high before the
industrial age is ~300 ppm and there is now 379 ppm (and growing)
I'd venture a wild guess and say some of it anyway. Maybe one of
these days we can talk the CO2 molecules into wearing little name
tags while we count them so we can tell "natural" from "human". ;-)

I can't find any reviews of the physics underlying the ice core data,
but the idea that we can melt ice and "know" the CO2 history of the
planet grates on me.

Can anyone in the know tell me for certain that there wouldn't be
Fickian diffusion of the gas throughout the core over the course of
hundreds of thousands of years. Even very slow diffusion adds up,
and it will smooth out the bumps in the CO2 record, flattening out
highs and lows.

I honestly don't know the answer, but it certainly is one of the
things I'd ask about if I were refereeing. I'd almost guarantee that
the climatologists who wrote the original Nature paper (cited more
than 1,200 times!) don't know, either, and neither would the
climatologists solicited for peer review.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

I've been looking for reviews of that too. Let me know if you find
it,
I haven't had any luck.
- Ken



Just in case anyone else wants to sit down with google scholar, the
original article is

Nature 399, 429-436 (3 June 1999) | doi:10.1038/20859; Received 20
January 1999; Accepted 14 April 1999
Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok
ice core, Antarctica

J. R. Petit1, J. Jouzel2, D. Raynaud1, N. I. Barkov3, J.-M. Barnola1, I.
Basile1, M. Bender4, J. Chappellaz1, M. Davis5, G. Delaygue2, M.
Delmotte1, V. M. Kotlyakov6, M. Legrand1, V. Y. Lipenkov3, C. Lorius1, L.
PÉpin1,1, C. Ritz1, E. Saltzman5 and M. Stievenard2

I'm zeroing in on some of the other issues:

# CRAIG, H, GRAVITATIONAL SEPARATION OF GASES AND ISOTOPES IN POLAR ICE
CAPS, SCIENCE 242: 1675 (1988).[Abstract/Free Full Text]

# RAYNAUD, D, THE ICE RECORD OF GREENHOUSE GASES, SCIENCE 259: 926
(1993).

# RAYNAUD, D, SCIENCE 260: 1411 (1993).[Free Full Text]

# SCHWANDER, J, THE AGE OF THE AIR IN THE FIRN AND THE ICE AT SUMMIT,
GREENLAND, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES 98: 2831 (1993).



I just printed out Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
Vol. 94, pp. 8343–8349, August 1997
Colloquium Paper
This paper was presented at a colloquium entitled ‘‘Carbon Dioxide and
Climate Change,’’ organized by Charles D.
Keeling, held November 13–15, 1995, at the National Academy of Sciences,
Irvine, CA.
Gases in ice cores
MICHAEL BENDER*, TODD SOWERS†, AND EDWARD BROOK*‡

This has a section on "The Physics of Gases in Glaciers" I must admit I
thought gases had two s's!
Long section, but:
"The diffusivity of an element or compound decreases with
increasing mass and increasing atomic or molecular diameter.
Thus each element or compound diffuses at a different rate,
and each isotope of a compound diffuses at a different rate. In
consequence, the covariation between the composition of one
gas and another (e.g., CO2 and CH4) in firn is different from
their historical covariation in air. The isotopic composition of
a gas (e.g., CO2) in firn air also varies with the concentration
of that gas in a way that is different from the historical
relationship. The concentrations of gases and isotopes that
diffuse most rapidly will be closest to their current atmospheric
concentrations. Because light isotopes diffuse more rapidly,
the concentration of a gas in firn air will be more depleted in
heavy isotopes than was the atmosphere at the time it had the
same concentration as a firn air sample. Differential diffusivity
is a first-order effect that must be taken into account when
interpreting data on the concentration and isotopic composition
of gases in firn air and ice cores (7)."

What it seems to come down to is that there's a relatively complex
inverse model of all this stuff that needs to be applied. As inverse
models are often ill-posed, of course, it's not clear to me that the
pristine state of the atmosphere can be recovered.




--
Scott
Reverse name to reply