Saturday, January 16, 2010

It Can't Get Any Worse?

Some souls there are that needs must taste
Of wrong, ere choosing right;
We should not call those years a waste
Which led us to the light

-From Life by Ella Wheeler Wilcox (1850-1919)

Yes, I took a month long hiatus from writing, and I appreciate all those who have continued to check back. I'm ready for another year, and so much has piled up I am feeling overwhelmed so let's get right to it.

In reflecting on 2009, I recalled a story once told to me by a friend that I have every reason to believe is true.

There was a guy at his neighborhood bar who came in one night very depressed. Apparently, he had been fired from his job, and his wife had left him all in a short period of time. After drowning his sorrows in his beer all night, he declared, "well, at least it can't get any worse" and stumbled out the door.

They didn't see the guy for quite some time as he stopped frequenting the bar. Later they found out what happened. On the way home from the bar that night, he had been sexually another man. Let's just say that no one at that bar ever said "it can't get any worse" ever again.

That's pretty much how I feel about 2009 and the prospects for 2010.

One link I have to get out almost knocked me off my chair when I read it, and, of course, it was not even back page news.
Science Daily reports that "Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850" and published his results in Geophysical Research Letters. According to the article:

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.
Oh, really? Well it's nice to know that scientists are just now finding out that CO2 is not increasing in the atmosphere! That's not a real significant bit of data!!!!!!!

Much more coming soon...

Beth Haynes informs me that I misinterpreted the article. The study pertains to the fraction of CO2 remaining not to the overall level. The article is still important since AGW alarmists would have us believe that the ability for the earth to absorb additional amounts of CO2 is declining which their models then extrapolate to project temperatures. Evidently, this is not the case. She gave 4 links which discuss this article in more detail and/or debunk this misinterpretation of the headline implication:

Climate Progress, World Climate Report, Met Office Hadley Center, Skeptical Science)


garret seinen said...

Welcome back, I and about a thousand others missed your posts.
Doug, if you have a chance, Ian Plimar,"Heaven and Earth", from pg 416 on he describes the methodology behind CO2 measurement and why anything stated can't be trusted. If you don't have access to the book, let me know and I'll capsulate what he writes.

Doug Reich said...

Thanks Garret! Please, encapulate away.

garret seinen said...

From “Heaven and Earth”, Dr. Ian Plimer. (with poetic license? capsulating some 15 pages of information)
“The measurement of CO2 in the atmosphere is fraught with difficulty”.

From 1812 to 1961 a chemical method (Petttenkofer) having an accuracy of 1-3%, was use yielding more than 90,000 measurements. It showed that CO2 concentration fluctuated widely from lows of 300 (1885) to highs of 440 (1825 and 1945) parts per million volume (ppmv).

In 1959 the measurement system was change to infra-red at the Mauna Loa site, yet infra-red has never been validated against the Pettenkofer method. As well, Mauna Loa data is ‘fine tuned’. Some 82% of the measurements are rejected as being ‘poor data’ by the operator.

While the Pettenkofer method gave annual fluctuation ranging from 270 - 380 ppmv, the Mauna Loa data yields a smooth increasing curve.e mentions, the reason for locating at Mauna Loa was to avoid an area with large industrially generated carbon dioxide. As it is, they are in an area where there is a lot of volcanically generated CO2.

Further, the IPCC chose to ignore all Pettenkofer data without giving any explanation. But Dr Plimer brings into question the accepted ‘atmospheric lifetime’ for CO2 claimed by the IPCC as one of the unsupported corner-stones of the panicky urgent calls for CO2 restriction.

He speaks of Carbon dating methods, some 18 studies, giving results ranging from 3 - 25 years, significantly different from the 50 - 200 years claimed by the IPCC.

“There is clearly a lot more to learn about CO2.”

The fundamental question to be answered remains, how has such a monstrous evasion of reality been so glibly accepted by the media, the university faculty, our political leaders and the general public?

Cheers, gs