"We" do NOT measure CO2 - resurrected thread.

[Derek]

Hi All,
I have been considering how, or even "if" it was worth reposting this thread,
that on the old forum, did, well, "run a bit"...
SPECIAL MENTION must be made to the Tony Brown attachment where he looks into the history of CO2 measurements.

Whilst putting together Dr. Glassman's archive thread I noticed this sectin of his CO2 Acquittal paper.
Excerpt,
" Another observer of current climatology examined Vostok data in a similar coordinate system.
He is Ferdinand Engelbeen, a gadfly and regular commenter to RealClimate.org,
a major public outlet for IPCC climatologists.
Best fit mathematical lines to the Vostok data.
Zero temperature refers to the current global temperature. http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaa...tion.html.

Figure 5
Engelbeen’s result is shown in Figure 5. He shows a best linear fit and a best quadratic fit,
also known as the first and second order fits, respectively.
Mathematics guarantees that increasing the order of the fit improves (or at least can’t worsen) the fit.
Mr. Engelbeen found this important Vostok relationship “surprisingly linear”.
(Comment #2, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13#comment-69.)
More importantly, his analysis confirms that the curvature in the data is not an optical illusion.

Curves like Engelbeen’s are purely mathematical fits.
They indicate correlation, a mathematical relationship, but
he gives them no connection to physics. "

This made me decide to "resurrect" this thread, and in the interests of completeness I have attached a number of relevant attachments.
I have moved on from my original position / knowledge / understanding I have to say,
but do I have any more faith in the "MLO record of global CO2 measurements" - most emphatically NO.

“We” do NOT measure (global levels of ) CO2 at
the Mauna Loa Observatory.

Areas of concern.


What motivates "MLO et al" in the continuing CO2 monitoring program appears to be explained by Dr Tans in one of his replies to Anthony Watts at,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/06/po...a-eruption
Excerpt of one of Dr. Tans email replies to Anthony Watts,
" We are very much aware that in a time
when carbon dioxide emissions will cost a lot of money, there has to be
an objective and fully credible way to quantify emissions. Without
that, carbon markets cannot function efficiently, and policies cannot be
measured relative to their objectives. We think that the atmosphere
itself can provide objective quantification. "
End of excerpt.

“there has to be an objective and fully credible way” – I agree wholeheartedly.
So, I have continued looking at MLO et al and the (ancient) instruments and method
used.

I have posted an “elephant” version of what follows here on several forums, ie,

And,
http://co2sceptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=125
And,
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Forum/....php?t=102
“We” do NOT measure (global) CO2 levels.
Second version –
How many elephants are in the room. ?

Mauna Loa Observatory has been measuring “global CO2” levels for 50 years now, in January 2009.
How good a record has it produced. ?


In the first version I looked at http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_...ments.html
this official page and description of the method employed to measure the beneficial to plant life trace gas that is CO2.
Excerpt,
“Infrared absorption.
How does the CO2 analyzer work? Air is slowly pumped through a small cylindrical cell with flat windows on both ends.
Infrared light is transmitted through one window, through the cell, through the second window, and is measured by
a detector that is sensitive to infrared radiation. In the atmosphere carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation,
contributing to warming of the earth surface. Also in the cell CO2 absorbs infrared light.
More CO2 in the cell causes more absorption, leaving less light to hit the detector.
We turn the detector signal, which is registered in volts, into a measure of the amount of
CO2 in the cell through extensive and automated (always ongoing) calibration procedures.”
End of excerpt.

In short, at the wavelength measured the amounts of other gases that overlap CO2 (spectrally)
are present in such small amounts and their responses at this wavelength are so small that they can be ignored.
I have to admit that excepting water, this appears to be the case, but even so the sum of the other gases,
(N2O and O3 I believe) that are contributing, and may (do) vary MUST be taken into account
if the purported measurement accuracy of “MLO et al” to 0.1 ppm is to be correct.
To show how consistent the MLO measurements appear to be I have plotted 47 years of results as monthly rate of changes in the below plot.
Please note the CO2 concentration rate of change is in parts per million scale on the left of the plot..



It is an unbelievably consistent record, is it not. ?
I have added an upper (+) and lower (-) black line of only 1 part per million rate of monthly change to the next plot to illustrate this point.



There are however many other concerns.
If you consider the rational that it is the amount of a GHG present, how it varies, and
it’s spectral response at a specific wavelength that is the important factor overall
then an obvious and large concern is immediately raised, namely water vapour..

1) The water vapour concern.

As Ferdinand’s figures posted elsewhere show water vapour content can be both considerable and varying.
In almost all studies it is now widely accepted that water vapour is THE most important GHG
(contributing between 85% to 95% of the so called “greenhouse” effect)
because of it’s strong and wide spectral response and the considerable quantities involved.

From the descriptions so far it becomes apparent that “MLO et al” believe they have dealt with this concern.
The next line of justification usually employed is that the air sample is dried by the cold water trap.
To “dry” air completely a temperature of about minus 70 C is required.
This is why the cold water temperature traps temperature record is important.
Given the size of the (water) elephant even a slight change in the cold traps temperature could have
considerable and undesirable effects on the every ten seconds, accurate to 0.1 ppm measurements.
Tim Channon in another post at CS raised a question regarding what happens to the ice in the cold trap.
Over time I assume this ice must build up, eventually blocking the cold trap if it is not removed. How is it removed, and when, and how often.
I would hazard a guess that the four machines (all in constant use according to an email from Dr. Tans) at MLO
are changed over at regular time intervals to allow the cold traps to be de-iced.
This would mean (up to) four different machines are used to produce one continuous record.

This water vapour concern also does effect the air samples before they are even taken.
For instance in the cold of the early morning as dew forms the air cools as does the water vapour.
In the real world CO2 / water solubility changes mean that the water vapour reduces the CO2 level in the air in the early morning.
It would seem reasonable that during a normal day CO2 levels would alter quite markedly due to
the changes in the air’s temperature due to the solubility of CO2 in water relationship alone.

Rain would have a considerable effect as Ferdinand has noted previously, lots of cooled water, high humidity.

Is there a temperature / pressure / humidity record for MLO.
Apparently not. ?
Water vapour and how it varies must be known within the instruments and out side where the samples are taken.
As well as how changes have effected the sample before it is taken.

Also are the adaptations to the instruments (originally made for contained air samples) to take external measurements
known NOT to effect the samples, a long pipe connected to a metal tower presumably has condensation at different times of day or weather conditions.


2) QA / machine constants, repairs, replacements, and upgrades concerns.

Undoubtedly these are required, and repairs, replacements must have happened over the 50 year record from MLO, but none are available on the internet.
I have not seen any other evidence that the records are available, or have been checked.
Since August 2008 a change log has been introduced, which 49 years on is too little too late, but a step in the right direction undoubtedly.
Simply before August 2008 the changes, constants, repairs, upgrades are unknown, any record produced now
from some unknown as yet source, would have to be to put it kindly somewhat taken on trust.
Would it be a historical record of changes and good QA process monitoring, or would it be freshly written. ?
All that is known at present is such records are not available on the internet, and do not appear to have been verified or independently checked.
Given the importance of the measurements (as the Dr. Tans quote above illustrates) this is a major concern
as to the reliability of the instruments and the measurements they take.


3) The discarded outlier concern.

The practice of discarding any measurements that over several hours vary by more than 0.25ppm is
usually justified by “MLO et al” because there is little or no variation measured at the South Pole. ?
And, the samples have been altered by the volcanic CO2 emissions of the local volcanoes
(there are 2 in the vicinity – one the world’s most active CO2 emitting volcano.)
Another justification used is because CO2 is assumed to be a well mixed gas, so there is a back ground level to measure.
Does this ONLY apply to CO2. ?
Other gases are known to vary, but CO2 no, it is special, it IS well mixed, apparently.
An assumption with no “motive power” whatsoever for CO2s assumed mixing that does not apply to other gases. ?
Using the above “justifications” MLO et al then discard any measurements that vary by more than their “allowed” amount.
“Flags” denoted discarded data.
In some early studies of MLO released data it appeared that up to 80% of the “raw data” had been discarded.
Last August it appeared that much data was altered / discarded because of machine / instrument breakdown.
Overnight the data set back from Aug 2008 to 1974 was altered, no explanation was given until WUWT asked.
The answers and concluding remarks on the below linked to thread are informative.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/04/on...ta-doesnt/

The flags used to denote discarded data are not specific / quantified variables, but are descriptions and therefore subjective.
This is simply the removal of “unwanted” outliers, by subjective decisions based on preconceived assumptions of what they are measuring..

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/ph...?f=6&t=572
Dr Glassman summed this problem best with this statement.
Excerpt,
“ Ferdinand reports that the data are reduced to produce smoother results.
He reports that investigators select data to reject volcanic, agricultural, and other local effects.
He says that they remove outliers before averaging, and that that is normal scientific and engineering practice.
Without more, these are all subjective steps. While they may be common practice,
they are at best incompletely reported or worse - unscientific.

Terrible mistakes have been made and actual frauds perpetrated by improper removal of outliers. ”
End of excerpt.


As an example of the care needed to avert massive mistakes being made using South Pole measurements, incorrect assumptions and,
basic misunderstanding of the processes involved, Ozone is a excellent example.
South Pole data / measurements of Ozone were used to “show” how man had created the ozone hole,
as the processes involved were understood at the time.
That idea is now all but discredited, as the processes / effects both natural and man made were not understood correctly.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14211 recent discoveries have shown this.

The seasonal Ozone hole still appears to be at about (within 1% of) record size.


Overall, MLO et al have removed outliers that do not fit their preconceived assumptions by subjective flags based on,
1) What they knew of.
2) What they knew of incorrectly and,
3) What they did not know of.

It should be of little surprise their measurements seem to fit their assumptions.

4) The variation of what do we actually measure concern.

Yes, spectrally we appear to measure CO2 but what and which variations that are not admitted already as discarded. ?
In the mid 1950s Keeling himself produced a paper that discarded the effect of the vegetation
to any great extent on the MLO measurements, more recently plots have been produced showing
a net decrease in the MLO vegetation changes rate confirming, or rather reaffirming Keeling’s original findings.

In short the vegetation appears to be on the wane (less active sun possibly)
yet the MLO official rates of change of CO2 have not changed.
Excepting a recent hiccup as covered at WUWT that it would appear will soon be “corrected”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/11/ma...s-history/

Almost any reading of the official MLO sites refers to “CO2 depleted (by vegetation) air samples”. ?

There are other even more basic "what do we measure" questions.
Many measurements are flagged (discarded) by MLO because of the local volcano,
usually these are referred to as downslope wind directions, and nothing more.
In the case of downslope from the volcano winds this appears reasonable,
if it was correlated to volcanic activity or gas emissions.
The volcano could be permanently emitting gas, but I doubt it is a constant, even so this may be reasonable.

Upslope winds appear to make up most of the voltage measurements that are kept for processing.
These winds are therefore used as our measurement of global CO2 levels.
Locally Keeling suggested vegetation was not much of an effect, but officially vegetation is given
as the reason for the seasonal variation as measured at MLO.

Is there anything else that could be effecting the measured CO2 level at MLO. ?
Mauna Loa is a volcanic island, it is in the Pacific ocean, and this island is near the equator.
Seasonally the trade winds shift North and South, as do the Hadley cells they are part of.
The tropics of Cancer and Capricorn show the seasonal movements of the Hadley cells North and South of the equator.
The official position is that CO2 is a well mixed gas, obviously not instantly but over many months globally speaking.
The usual answer given is that it takes about 18 months for CO2 emitted from any locality
to become evenly mixed globally.
.
Dr. Glassman’s page http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2...ittal.html
The Acquittal of CO2 - covers the water / CO2 solubility / temperature relationship very well.
The trade winds that blow across Mauna Loa have blown across a part of the Pacific where the water is known
to be warming and so therefore de-gassing CO2. The longer the wind has blown across the ocean the more
CO2 that will have been de-gassed by the ocean, so the higher the level of CO2 measured.
Over the path of the trade winds it would be reasonable to expect an increasing level of CO2
as the wind neared the solar zenith and the doldrums.].

Below is a roughly drawn figure that shows this.



Obviously Mauna Loa being an island does not move, but the trade winds do move with the sun’s zenith,
between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. They move seasonally, regularly, and relatively predictably.

The point the figure is trying to illustrate is that MLO is on an island that the trade winds move over seasonally.
If you have a measuring station (on the above figure) at point A would you expect a lower CO2 reading than at point B on the diagram. Yes.
Is this the seasonal variation that MLO is measuring. ?

5) The unseen algorithm concern.
Quite simply, remember Mann’s 1998 and 2008 “Hockey Stick” temperature projections.
In the 1998 “Hockey Stick” there were supposedly 400 plus data sets. Then by accident someone found a copy of the algorithm Mann et al used.
It turned out that Mann had used 112 data sets only, AND one data set had been weighted by a factor of 396.
So, what appeared to be 400 plus data sets was in reality just one because of the undeclared omissions and weighting..

No one has seen the algorithms used by “MLO et al”.
We may have seen 2 days of 10 second voltage data of a 50 year record,
but algorithms, no, not at all, not one.
Constants / corrections used, what, how, why to calculate the ppm figures released,
we simply DO NOT KNOW.

This concern is THE major concern (closely followed by the discarded outliers concern), in my opinion.
This concern is a known fact, no one has seen the algorithms used, because they have never been given or released.
It really is that simple, no algorithm, no known objective or fully creditable MLO et al CO2 record,
whether it be of localized variations or “assumed” background global levels.

There are many further and more detailed concerns regarding the MLO et al CO2 “global” record of 50 years,
above I have merely tried to put some of the major areas (as I understand) of concern, in as simple a way as possible.

If just one of the above concerns is reasonable the whole MLO et al CO2 record is at best, neither objective nor fully creditable.
The simple fact is obvious; the algorithm concern alone is A FACT.
In my opinion the CO2 global record is discredited, unreliable, and does not measure what it purports to monitor.
What MLO et al purports to measure (a global CO2 background level) does that even exist,
except as an ideological expression of what “they” would like you to believe.
No, not in any real sense.
If such a place existed to measure such an “average level” then it WILL NOT BE
in the middle of a de-gassing ocean, on a volcanic island, near the world’s most active CO2 emitting volcano.

My version of why MLO is important.

The MLO et al record has been used to “prove” or “support” most, if not all AGW / man made climate change
unproven hypothesis / ideas / fears, new ways to tax / control us.
It is plain that the base this is built on (MLO et al) is false, and
So therefore is everything built off it.
MLO et al is the ORIGINAL Hockey Stick and is one of the cornerstones of the biggest scam in human history so far,
the idea that man has significantly effected the climate of this planet.
Other “cornerstones” of AGW being,
( the now discredited) Mann et al 1998 Hockey Stick, and
(the never validated) climate models
(which still have a very poor understanding of clouds as well as of oceanic phases and cycles, and
of course not forgetting the “constant” assumed solar influence, admitted and other effects that are flatly denied).

The three main areas of support for AGW require you to have much to believe in.
Yet they are derived from an understanding amd knowledge of the processes involved that is
a) incomplete,
b) assumed and,
c) has been shown to be wrong.

Belief is the life blood of politics and religion.
Science should be empirical.
MLO et al is NOT empirical. The released data sets are the ideological representations of what they assume they are trying to measure.
It requires a lot of belief, a belief that will cost us all dearly, and soon.

The planet continues to cool, as it has for the last ten years.
That WAS NOT modeled or predicted by anyone supporting the MLO et al / AGW unproven hypothesis’s position.


Yours Derek.

[JohnWho]

Well, we are measuring CO2 level in the atmosphere at MLO, just not a figure that necessarily represents the global level, it would seem.

Just as one Yamal tree doesn't necessarily represent global temperature over a certain period of years.

Both could represent local readings though. However, in the case of the trees we (at least the skeptical "we") want a larger study "group" than one tree.

So then we should have multiple CO2 level measuring sites, should we not?

[Derek]

I agree John wholeheartedly that one measuring point however good (or bad),
is a joke in itself.
But, that is almost merely a side point compared with what I tried to question.

Obviously in your view I did not do too well then. ?

BTW - "They" do have multiple measuring sites, all over the globe,
- they all (supposedly) agree with each other.
Even from the tropics to the South pole ????
It does not do to question the evenly mixed CO2 assumption does it.....

BTW 2 - Sometime after the original series of posts on various blogs,
that make up the first post in this thread, the links, and the attachments,
I came across this thread at the Air Vent blog.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/5678/
(Also attached as a word document to this post)

I "joined in" the comments at post 24, (and left at post 37) folowing the original piece because
of what seemed to be being said by Ferdinand, and others.
They appeared to be saying that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was increasing, at an increasing rate,
because of man's emissions of CO2 gradually overwhelming the natural sinks.
I thought this does not make sense to me, I'll knock up an excel sheet and have a look.
(Excel sheet also attached to this post)
I quickly came up with these two plots.




No increasing rate of CO2 accumulation, or man emitted CO2 accumulation that I can see. ?

These plots and what they depict were simply dismissed.
No surprise there then.
Apparently my maths was too simple, more complicated methods, that I (as I am told) do not understand are required,
to show the increasing rate of man emitted CO2 are needed.............
BUT, then FE and others continue to discuss how to make the appropriate plots as if nothing was wrong.

Unbelievable, but true.

[JohnWho]

(05-13-2010 10:53 AM)Derek Wrote:  I agree John wholeheartedly that one measuring point however good (or bad),
is a joke in itself.
But, that is almost merely a side point compared with what I tried to question.

Obviously in your view I did not do too well then. ?

Not exactly.

Just pointing out that even at that basic level there is a problem for some.

"Well mixed gas" is a phrase I've seen often. Does it actually mean "perfectly" mixed? Does it appear "well mixed" because our instruments can not detect minor fluctuations or because the readings are the same everywhere?

Are areas of sources of CO2 gas giving higher readings than areas near CO2 sinks?

Just wondering.

[Mike Davis]

Johnwho:
All of the satellite data I have seen about CP2 concentrations reveal CO2 is NOT well mixed in the atmosphere. As a matter of fact the measurement locations are picked because of that.
Higher latitudes and altitudes are where the concentrations will be less as CO2 does wash out with precipitation and is absorbed by biological process. CO2 mixed with H2O forms carbonic acid which mixes with the calcium in limestone to form calcium carbonate that is used by the shell creatures for shells. It is obvious here where the red clay is left behind after the acid leaches the calcium from the rocks.
I have layers of shale in my front yard and near surface region is layered clay Actuallu starting from undisturbed it is clay to layered clay which becomes more rock like with depth. In run off areas there are settlement ponds, made of tree limbs, sticks and leaves, that form and the clay builds up there. I also built settlement ponds to control the runoff below regions where i disturbed the dirt and rock.
Basically for different reasons CO2 is not well mixed and the methods used at MLO and other locations based on 50 year old processes, even if they claim to be updated, do not account for regional variations that should follow regional atmospheric patterns.

The new satellites designed for measuring CO2 may give us more knowledge given enough time for a decent record.

If the records agree when measured at different locations I would take a closer look at the assumptions used or faulty equipment that returns desired results.
There are satellite pictures floating around for the CO2 but I do not have a link. It has been a while since I saw them.

[Richard111]

I long ago dropped out of any discussions on temperature because unless you include the MASS to define the energy level the "temperature" is a meaningless value.

Also for "well mixed" CO2, ptooee!!! An OZONE atom has an amu of 48 and is considered a massy atom that because of gravitational effects will and does form a layer above the tropopause. A CARBON DIOXIDE atom has an amu of 44 yet can float gaily around the atmosphere. Right!

Why do plants live close to the surface? We should have at least some floating about in the air. Plants NEED CO2.

How come the oceans could even possibly be a CO2 sink?? In a "well mixed" atmosphere it would indeed take thousands of years for the oceans to achieve a balance but look at the graphs DEREK posted.

The oceans take up the annual exhalations in just one year but the dumbos claim the the little bit left over is due to us!! Yeah, right!!

[Richard111]

Derek, just came across this link over at GREENIE WATCH:

http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/05/peerr...eveal.html

Might be of interest for your manuscript. Pretty graph.

[Derek]

Thank you Richard111.
AND Great point in regards to Ozone, evenly distributed gases.

BTW - Do you refer to this in particular. ?
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/...te-science
Ocean Conveyor Belt Confounds Climate Science
Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Thu, 04/08/2010 - 14:27

Where I note,


It seems MY "tangerine projection" of how to view the worlds oceans was not so original then..........APPARENTLY.
You may remember,
http://s53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/De...20project/
ie,


Ho-hum.

Also sometime ago privately I said to someone that I thought that MLO was in the below depicted problem "state"....
And that soon, because of nature something at MLO,
WILL HAVE TO CHANGE.

At the time we were talking about those new fangled "type 23" CO2 measuring thingies,
that come up with whatever figure you want them to, and no one will ever know any different..
I've lost the references / links to them now - dam....I think we'll need them soon.

NB - My old factory manager, one of the most decent man I have ever had the fortune to meet / work for in my life,
mentioned to me several years ago now that the US has a scientfic acreditation body - AMAS certificate if I remember correctly.
It is a highly respected standard / verification of the processes / methods acredited.
I do not believe / understand that MLO has ever been acredited.
Does anyone know more along these lines please.

[Derek]

Thank you to RSC for letting me know about this thread at WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/un...e-volcano/

I have posted the below.

Derek says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

June 6, 2010 at 2:57 am
My apologies to Willis, and many of the following commentators, but I must say.

Overall there are many issues with the MLO data / method that
have been “brushed over”.

TonyB, Richard S Courtney, Ernest Beck, Pamela Gray, anne v, and many others
have raised real concerns and issues that have not been dealt with sufficiently.

I hope my layman’s explanations of some of these points will help
more understand the real issues with the MLO record, and it’s supposed “reliability”.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/fo...d-702.html
(Also includes excel sheets of MLO (monthly) data plots – you may find interesting….)

In the end one thing can be said,
the raw data for MLO has never been released.
“raw hourly averages” ARE NOT raw data, that at least was finally admitted..
However, if the raw data was released now,
would we know it was the original raw data – NO.

[Richard111]

Derek, I've been reading that WUWT thread as the response has been very informative about CO2 matters. Here is the link again:

Under the Volcano, Over the Volcano
Posted on June 4, 2010 by Willis Eschenbach

One of the comments had a link to a pdf file that has a lot of graphics about atomic structure and absorption and emission effects. Sadly there is no commentary of the lecture that must have accompanied these graphics. I would love to find that as it appears to me that CO2 is pretty ineffective as a "greenhouse" gas. Here is a link to the pdf, caution, it is 6megs or so, but do try and look at it.

http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~scarn/teaching/G...ecture.pdf

[Derek]

Thank you Richard111, I have saved a copy, if you find the notes please let me know.

[Mike Davis]

I just came across this :
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
It is from Jaworowski. I think you brought him up before but thought his view might be an addition to your position!

Derek - Yes, thank you Mike. The below Figure 1 is from Jaworowski's paper,
that I have also attached to this post.

[Mike Davis]

From the link above I found these things interesting:
Conclusion

The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning. The climatically inefficient and economically disastrous Kyoto Protocol, based on IPCC projections, was correctly defined by President George W. Bush as “fatally flawed”. This criticism was recently followed by the President of Russia Vladimir V. Putin. I hope that their rational views might save the world from enormous damage that could be induced by implementing recommendations based on distorted science.

But more so this gem:
In order to study the history of industrial pollution of the global atmosphere, between 1972 and 1980, I organized 11 glacier expeditions, which measured natural and man-made pollutants in contemporary and ancient precipitation, preserved in 17 glaciers in Arctic, Antarctic, Alaska, Norway, the Alps, the Himalayas, the Ruwenzori Mountains in Uganda, the Peruvian Andes and in Tatra Mountains in Poland. I also measured long-term changes of dust in the troposphere and stratosphere, and the lead content in humans living in Europe and elsewhere during the past 5000 years. In 1968 I published the first paper on lead content in glacier ice[1]. Later I demonstrated that in pre-industrial period the total flux of lead into the global atmosphere was higher than in the 20th century, that the atmospheric content of lead is dominated by natural sources, and that the lead level in humans in Medieval Ages was 10 to 100 times higher than in the 20th century. In the 1990s I was working in the Norwegian Polar Research Institute in Oslo, and in the Japanese National Institute of Polar Research in Tokyo. In this period I studied the effects of climatic change on polar regions, and the reliability of glacier studies for estimation of CO2 concentration in the ancient atmosphere.

The bolded is interesting because if true the restriction on lead in gas and other things was an early attempt at restricting humanity. This along with the OZONE thing. I saw changes that were claimed to benifit people that resulted in the opposite effect. The end result was a benefit to a small group that supported the restrictions and a detriment to the majority that were affected/paid for the changes.

[Derek]

Hi All,
Sometimes things get under my skin..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/un...ent-419028

" Willis Eschenbach says:
June 24, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
June 20, 2010 at 12:19 pm

…The raw (hourly averaged + stdv), non-altered in any way data are available for four of the baseline stations at:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/
where BRW = Barrow, MLO = Mauna Loa, SMO = Samoa and SPO = South Pole
These are calculated data, based on 2×20 minutes voltage readings of the outside air and
3×3 minutes readings of different calibration gases with known composition (see the first website about calibration).

Many thanks, Ferdinand. A number of people had asked for the raw data (or complained that it was unavailable).
Your link should set that to rest.

As to whether the outliers make any difference, please see Ferdinand’s web page here,
which shows that they make no difference at all. As William Connolley says,
Keeling knew what he was doing when he chose the site … "

and,

" Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
June 25, 2010 at 5:00 am
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 24, 2010 at 6:47 pm

As to whether the outliers make any difference, please see Ferdinand’s web page here,
which shows that they make no difference at all. As William Connolley says,
Keeling knew what he was doing when he chose the site …

Just finished a few graphs where the raw hourly data of two stations (Mauna Loa and Samoa) are
compared with the “cleaned” daily averages of the same stations for the year 2008,
according to the predefined rules for exclusion of outliers:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaa...t_2008.jpg
The average for the raw data of Samoa in 2008 is 384.00 ppmv, for the selected daily average data it is 393.91.
For Mauna Loa: raw 385.34, selected 385.49.
Hardly a difference in a trend of 60+ ppmv since the measurements at the South Pole and Mauna Loa started…

I also have plotted the same data on full scale to show that the small local variations around the global trend are of little interest:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaa...lscale.jpg
The full scale graph makes it clear that CO2 in the atmosphere, at least between MLO and SMO
(but also at most other places on earth) is very well mixed… "

So I've replied, and at present it is awaiting "moderation"...

Just a couple of Ferdinand quotes...

" The raw (hourly averaged + stdv), non-altered in any way data "

" Just finished a few graphs where the raw hourly data "

" The average for the raw data of Samoa in 2008 is 384.00 ppmv, for the selected daily average data it is 393.91.
For Mauna Loa: raw 385.34, selected 385.49. "

By slight of word, hourly averages become unaltered raw data.
Yet no raw data to see.
Very impressive Ferdinand, very impressive.

I love Willis's comment,
" Many thanks, Ferdinand. A number of people had asked for the raw data (or complained that it was unavailable).
Your link should set that to rest. "

Complicite, never, perish the thought.

[MostlyHarmless]

I think I may have been instrumental (at least partly) in prompting Willis's defence of the Mauna Loa "measurements". I can't locate my original post he almost violently objected to, but almost all the statements and criticisms he "debunked" were contained therein. He stated that CO2 concentrations varied very little with time, altitude and location, yet in the "Under the Volcano" article he outlined how "out-of-range" observations were eliminated, and that CO2, being a heavy gas, concentrates near the ground. To my mind, his article, far from supporting his argument, affectively demolished it.

Beck, whose paper I cited, replied but was completely ignored.

[Derek]

(06-29-2010 02:11 AM)MostlyHarmless Wrote:  To my mind, his article, far from supporting his argument, affectively demolished it.

Beck, whose paper I cited, replied but was completely ignored.

"affectively demolished it." - I agree completely.

Beck and so many others (yourself, and Tonyb for example) ignored,
don't they realise people actually do read these threads and comments.
They make themselves look a lot worse than just "silly".

Ferdy, yet again trying to pass off "raw" hourly averages.....
They never learn, or they are now so desperate because they have nowhere else to hide, or run to.
(Except the type 23 device.....)

[Derek]

I have found whilst looking unsuccesfully for something else, this abbreviated note regarding those damned "type 23" measureing devices I mentioned above..

Li Cor - INDEED.

http://www.licor.com/env/Products/GasAna...0/7000.jsp

http://www.licor.com/env/Products/GasAna..._frame.htm

http://www.licor.com/env/Products/GasAna..._frame.htm

[Richard111]

Here is someone who does measure CO2, Dipl. Biol. Ernst-Georg Beck.

The real history of CO2 gas analysis

Enjoy.

[Derek]

Hi All,
Whilst looking around for a 50,000 year CO2 record for Greenland (which I havn't found yet..),
I came across the below and thought I'd put it here, so I don't loose it.

http://hubpages.com/hub/ICE-Core-CO2-Rec...-Artifacts
ICE Core CO2 Records
- Ancient Atmospheres Or Geophysical Artifacts ?
By Robert Kernodle

Excerpt,
" Ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica are sacred pillars of evidence,
establishing benchmarks of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth’s prehistoric atmospheres.
But can ice actually preserve atmospheric air (free of contamination or chemical alteration)
for thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of years? "

The paper is split up into the below listed sections.
I have included the text of one section.
Fossil vs. Artifact
Jaworowski’s Objections
Raynaud’s Response
Critique Of Raynaud
Greenland Ice Cores
Nagging Doubts
The Real Picture
From this review so far, a more realistic picture of ice core science begins to emerge
– a picture that might be more tolerant of Jaworowski, whose jobs have placed him in the trust of others as a contamination expert.

Jaworowski argues that mainstream researchers are dreaming if they think that they can extract reliable information from
the conundrum of possible contamination problems in ice cores. Mainstream researchers, on the other hand, claim that
they know about these problems and have them under control. Brooks Hurd [12], an expert in purity of gases in the semiconductor and other industries,
echoes Jaworowski’s doubt, when he writes,
“concerns about loss and contamination of atmospheric components
from sampling handling prior to analysis should be a major issue in deep ice core CO2 analyses.”

A Young Science
Gases In Ices
More On Diffusion
Ice Sheet Creep, Deformation, Recrystallization, And Plastic Flow
Ice Flow Assumptions And Ice Core Drilling
Living Breathing Ice Sheets
Greenland SupraGlacial Lakes And Antarctica SubGlacial Lakes
Antarctic Volcanoes
Microbial Growth, Chemical Activity And Cosmic Radiation In Glacial Ice,
Conclusion,
Sources.

Overall in my opinion an excellant and clear discussion of the topic area, I hope others also find very useful / informative.

[Questioning_Climate]

Derek, that was a good find. I'd not see it. Robert Kernodle has done a pretty good job.

Here is another you might like to throw into the mix:

Quote:CO2 in Natural Ice
Stauffer, B | Berner, W
Symposium on the Physics and Chemistry of Ice; Proceedings of the Third International Symposium, Cambridge (England) September 12-16, 1977. Journal of Glaciology, Vol. 21, No. 85, p 291-300, 1978. 3 fig, 5 tab, 18 ref.

Natural ice contains approximately 100 ppm (by weight) of enclosed air. This air is mainly located in bubbles. Carbon dioxide is an exception. The fraction of CO2 present in bubbles was estimated to be only about 20%. The remaining part is dissolved in the ice. Measurements of the CO2 content of ice samples from temperate and cold glacier ice as well as of freshly fallen snow and of a laboratory-grown single crystal were presented. It is probable that a local equilibrium is reached between the CO2 dissolved in the ice and the CO2 of the surroundings and of the air bubbles. The CO2 content of ancient air is directly preserved neither in the total CO2 concentration nor in the CO2 concentration in the bubbles. Possibly the CO2 content of ancient air may at least be estimated if the solubility and the diffusion constant of CO2 in ice are known as a function of temperature. (See also W79-09342) (Humphreys-ISWS)

---

Here is another that rather catches the eye:

Quote: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

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.