But the studies using these measurements can, especially if alternative studies are referenced and compared.
I guess for you it's a tough choice, believe peer reviewed studies, or pure hearsay and unsubstantiated claims.
If the effect is significant, then that makes the measurements artificially high.
The ice cores are well away from urban activity. The measurement centre often quoted as Mauna Loa Observatory is at a high altitude of 3,400 metres and the results here seem to correlate well with ice-core samples presumably taken at low altitudes.
Compressed snow, typically. In the alps they sometimes tunnel the ice to let tourists walk in to see the beautiful blue colour of light through the ice.
In an earlier post I mentioned Mauna Loa Observatory is at 3,400 metres or 11,000 ft.
This mentions Law Dome, East Antarctica:
Vostok Station is also 3,500 metres. Most use high altitude ice-cores but CO2 is considered miscible with other fractions of the atmosphere.
However, if we are looking at the potential greenhouse effect associated with CO2 concentration it does look sensible to take a point mid-way in our atmosphere and to be independent of local ground effects of urban and rural areas.
Even if CD could produce higher CO2 values in urban areas taken in 1900 they don't really reflect the planet as a whole.
From diffusion and solubility of CO2 with sea water you might expect air close to the sea to have lower CO2 levels.
The methane aspect could be reduced, if it was deemed important. There are ways but not implemented. If methane was an important factror for you you would campaign for supplements for animal feed to stop the production of methane.
How many trees are felled to satisfy your Soy needs to satisfy your craving for synthetic milk and synthetic meat?
There is a difference at different altitudes:
There are also stalactites and slow growing coral nodules as well. They all show pretty much the same thing and some can give you a fairly good idea of how much water was locked up at the poles as well.
Light water preferentially ends up as rain and snow so that as the glaciers get thicker and thicker the remaining liquid water gradually concentrates its deuterium component (aka heavy water).
Not really. The atmosphere is relatively well mixed unless you find a very very sheltered depression or a cave with a volcanic CO2 source in it like the infamous dog cave in Clemont-Ferrand, France (and elsewhere).
You really haven't thought this through.
What does peer revieweing a *study* have to do with validating a
*measurement*.Unless the peer review actually takes its own measurements, which is called 'replicating an experiment' and is specifically NOT what a peer review is, it has no meaning. Peer review is to validate the logic, not the measurements.
You really make yourself look very stupid. I have consistently said that I *don't* believe those particular measurements to be *measuring what today we would call atmospheric CO2 levels*. But that is not because I believe them to be lies, or hearsay. I believe them to be honest measurement done a long time ago under conditions that are probably not particularly conducive to measuring what we measure today.
My argument with you has never been about the straw men you raised. It has been that you chose an inappropriate and emotive term that you patently failed to understand to challenge the conclusion.
Peer review is meaningless in terms of measurements. You simply didn't read or didn't understand my explanation as to why.
Real Science? proposes hypotheses that give testable deductions. Then measurements are made in experiments to test these deductions. If the test don't fail, the hypotheses become theories.
Peer review is there to check the *logic* of the deductions. To spot flaws in the *mathematics*.
Measuring something uncontroversial like the length of your dick is not advancing a hypothesis.
There is nothing to BE peer reviewed. Only if your so called measurement is the result of say the output of a MODEL then the logic and mathematics of that model may be questioned by peer review,. But this is not the case here.
A modern way to measure gas concentrations is cited here :
"Since the amount of light absorbed is proportional to the concentration of the absorbing molecules, the concentration of a gas can be determined by comparing the measured absorbance with the absorbance of a known standard. The light source emits broad-spectrum radiation".
AFAIAA this is broadly how satellites measure it. Tell me how you would 'peer review' this methodology
Mauna loa in particular uses ppm of *dry* air, which is not the same as PPM of *wet* air.
"in April of 2019, a new CO2 analyzer was installed at Mauna Loa that uses a technique called Cavity Ring-Down Spectroscopy (CRDS). (Prior to this date, an analyzer was used based on infrared absorption.) CRDS is based on the measurement of the rate of absorption, rather than the magnitude of absorption, of light circulating in an optical cavity. The beam from a laser enters an optical cavity consisting of two or more highly reflective mirrors. The laser beam is reflected back and forth inside the cavity, the so-called ?ring-down cavity?. The laser is then turned off and the light intensity inside the cavity steadily leaks out and decays to zero in an exponential fashion. A detector measures the intensity of the transmitted light as a function of time. The decay time is called the cavity ring-down time. By comparing the ring down times when the laser is at a wavelength that the CO2 molecule does not absorb, to the ring down time when the laser is at a wavelength that the CO2 molecule does absorb, the amount of CO2 can be calculated (The analyzer also measures CH4 and CO). "
This technique did not exist in 1989 or whenever Cursitor's text books were written. It too relies on spectral absorption.
CO2 is a bit heavier than air. Was the measurement PPM by WEIGHT rather than my molecule, or by volume?
Thinking about MY chemistry days a (Victorian) way of measuring gas concentration might be to weigh a given volume of air, then put in something that absorbs CO2, and measure the weight gain of that and see how much weight was removed from the air mass. A very *inaccurate* way, but possibly how it could be done without using accurate spectral analysis which requires electronic instrumentation that measures the amplitude of stuff.
I doubt you will decide to accept my point, which is that measuring CO2 levels 100 or more years ago we would not have had the same techniques to do so, and, given that CO2 levels vary enormously depending on where you are and what is going on around you, and no one gave a tuppenny f*ck what they were really anyway, because there was no need to know,they are of academic interest only and I cant see anyone sweating for years to get a measurement more accurate than ±50% anyway.
Perhaps you didn't do science as school. I did. A peculiar course sponsored by the Nuffield foundation. We spent about three periods measuring the force of gravity. We did it in two ways. One way consisted in cart running down an inclined plane dragging a piece of tape through a 50Hz solenoid and magnet arrangement that puts marks on the tape every
20 ms, from which we measured acceleration and calculated G.The other method used pieces of precisely measured string with weights on the bottom to create a pendulum. Whose swings we timed.
Different teams repeated each experiment so we had about 15 results in each case.
The physics master used the results to make a very important point that probably you have never had made. One method - the cart running down the slope - was very inaccurate. Our results varied by as much as 50%. The average of the results was somewhere in the right area though But not very close.
By contrast the range of results on the pendulum was much tighter, and discarding one outlier, were correct to one decimal place.
The physics master than introduced the idea of error bars and the sigma of statistics, to show that we could write the measurements in terns of a margin of error, to one, two and three sigma, and that without those error limits and statistical levels, the answers were almost meaningless.
We don't have those statistics in the Victorian textbooks. Although some idea of 'mean error' is described in the 19th century the really thorough application of them to measurement is pure 20th century
My point is that I believe *that* to be a valid criticism of Cursitor's position. There is no lying or deception involved. Those were the measurements and they are in his textbooks, but what is unknowable is what they actually *mean*, and his mistake is ascribing to then the same meaning and accuracy as today's measurements.
There is far too much OTHER evidence - greening deserts', ice cores, even tree rings (though those are also rainfall and sunlight dependent)
Another issue that is not mentioned is that carbon 14 is 'made' from nitrogen by thermal neutrons created by cosmic rays interacting with the atmosphere
"The rate of 14C production can be modelled, yielding values of
16,400[14] or 18,800[15] atoms of 14C per second per square meter of the Earth's surface, which agrees with the global carbon budget that can be used to backtrack,[16] but attempts to measure the production time directly in situ were not very successful. Production rates vary because of changes to the cosmic ray flux caused by the heliospheric modulation (solar wind and solar magnetic field), and due to variations in the Earth's magnetic field. The latter can create significant variations in 14C production rates, although the changes of the carbon cycle can make these effects difficult to tease out. [16][17] Occasional spikes may occur; for example, there is evidence for an unusually high production rate in AD 774?775,[18] caused by an extreme solar energetic particle event, strongest for the last ten millennia.[19][20] Another "extraordinarily large" 14C increase (2%) has been associated with a 5480 BC event, which is unlikely to be a solar energetic particle event.[21]Carbon-14 may also be produced by lightning [22][23] but in amounts negligible, globally, compared to cosmic ray production. Local effects of cloud-ground discharge through sample residues are unclear, but possibly significant. "
So the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is also a function of cosmic rays. modulated by solar events and earth's magnetic fields.
In short its very very complex and yelling 'peer review' doesn't make it simple,. Except to the terminally naïve.
But that is most of the people who *believe* in Climate Change? I guess. And let the BBC, the New Scientist and the Guardian inform them, rather than thinking it out themselves.
Or low.,
Depending where you measure
It isn't THAT significant though. But it is measurable.
Not nearly as significant as the fact that by the time you get to 10,000 feet you are above 30% of the CO2 and indeed the whole atmosphere, and decent cloud tops radiating energy to space sit comfortably all the way up to 30,000 ft.
Another factor somewhat ignored by the AGW modellers.
Why? As I pointed out, radiation is from the ground with clear skies or from cloud tops if its cloudy.
Clear sky CO2 greenhouse effects rely on the total atmospheric re-emission. So you want the total concetration in the atmosphere. Cloud tops are well above 50% of the CO2, so you want the CO2 that lies above them. Maybe 20,000 feet or more.,
Climate modellers dont do clouds. Too difficult. They fudge them in and assume the stay constant with climate change. How f****ng dumb is that?
I am glad you are beginning to accept my point that in fact his researched results are not necessarily inconsistent with modern readings
Or if temperature is rising, exactly the reverse, from outgassing...
This stuff is really COMPLICATED even to make the right assumptions. I'll pose you a question. The answer that I found - and feel free to question it, check it or come up with conflicting measurements - astounded me.
Which is hotter *on average*, a desert or a rainy part of the world at the same latitude*?
I was trying to get a handle on whether clouds made the surface warmer, by keeping heat in at night, or cooler, by keeping the sun off during the day.
Although the diurnal *range* in a desert is stupendous - 50°C by day and 5°C by night is not uncommon in tropical deserts - to my surprise the *average* temperatures were little different between e.g. the Sahara and say Florida, which are on similar latitudes.
In temperate zones of course it is all about ocean currents. The whole thing is EAY more complicated than þe AGW fanatics suggest.
Please do NOT quote skeptical science, which is neither skeptical, nor science, and is *completely* discredited
If there is consensus amongst many measurements then it gives credibility to their published article.
However if you think hearsay claims without any evidence would pass peer review then you are resoundingly mistaken.
<Snip nonsense>The only person who looks stupid here is someone accepting a few words from a man on a usenet group with no evidence whatsoever, and then whinge when peer reviewed papers disprove their claims.
You really couldn't make it up. You need to rethink this.
Are you now suggesting I should only reference peer reviewed credited publications?
You have changed your tune.
As you are 'a man on a usenet group with no evidence whatsoever', you seem to have shot yourself in the foot.
I think you need to rethink your view of the scientific process - after all, it has been explained to you in some detail, most of which you have snipped and gratuitously labelled as 'nonsense', and to which you have made no cogent reply.
Good, we seem to have got somewhere.
<snip irrelevant claims re AGW>We're talking purely about CO2. No point in extrapolating that to any other claim unless you have a myopic train of thought.
If it's from the ground then we need to take the whole atmosphere as a whole.
Are you certain there are no models that include clouds?
Except his claims aren't backed by evidence.
Do you dent that sea water is becoming more acidic? Is this from some outgassing or in-gassing?>
Agreed. So if a claim is made it should be backed up with evidence however tenuous. Citing some out of date encyclopedias that don't include levels of CO2 doesn't help.
I disagree with your suggestion. It is a suggestion and you're not claiming as fact.
Agreed, but CO2 levels undoubtedly play a part. To claim they haven't changed in over a century without any evidence is unhelpful and shows a mind closed to other possibilities when all accepted evidence suggests otherwise.
Well they are and he has the documents. What you should be doing is peer-reviewing the methodology behind the measurements and concurring with TNP that, although the measurements were made and documented, they are not that useful.
Deeper into the mire. Measurements are not concsious beings. They may be consistent, but they cannot have a consensus.
Do you realise that yoiu have been conditioned by sites like skeptical science to talk in AGW martingale pyschobabble? Peer review, consensus. These are terms used to *market* AGW. Not terms used to determine scientific validity
I am afraid they do all the time.
'Scientists' are always citing each others work to justify their claims. Is THAT work 'peer reviewed', or does it have its measurements duplicated?
Less often than you might suppose
In the realm of medicine of the *peer reviewed* studies that *were* duplicated, IIRC less than 50% replicated the original results. Drug companies regard 'scientific papers' as marketing collateral and will pay for the results they need to sell their product.
Lotta money in climbit-seance
Peer review does nothing to guarantee an honest set of measurements. Its just another buzz word to give spurious credibility to what often is utter bunk and forged data.
Only replication validates data
The only person who looks stupid here is someone accepting a few words from a people on a political web site designed to promote political climate change narratives with no evidence whatsoever, and then whinge when 'peer reviewed' papers are unable to disprove the validity of measurements
There would have been "concensus" between Millikan's measurements and any published soon after. That didn't make them right, as subsequent results showed.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.