Climategate: "Hide the Decline"

[Mikebits]

If you guys have objection to my review, that is fine. Are you guys OK with citing Wikipedia in a research submission? Or horrible syntax and spelling? I don't think such things would typically pass peer review and certainly it wouldn't if the submitting researcher argued with the reviewers that it was OK.

First of all, since we are pretending, lets us consider the presented material as a first draft, in which case I would not quibble over trivial matters such as spelling as this merely distracts from the real purpose of reading the written material.

On your second point, questionable citations ie. Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , I would agree that this is not considered a valid source as a reference, however the author of the article did amply provide valid citations for claims written in the article (see below), therefore I think some latitude should be given when considering this source. I think if you follow all citations provided by the original author, you will agree that the article holds credence.

1. ^ Mauna Loa CO2 annual mean data from NOAA. "Trend" data was used. See also: Trends in Carbon Dioxide from NOAA.
2. ^ a b c **broken link removed** By Daniel Friedman - InspectAPedia
3. ^ "**broken link removed**". U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:. **broken link removed**.
4. ^ Staff (16 August 2006). "Carbon dioxide: IDLH Documentation". National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Documentation for Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health Concentrations (IDLHs) - 124389. Retrieved 2007-07-05.
5. ^ "Phase change data for Carbon dioxide". National Institute of Standards and Technology. Carbon dioxide. Retrieved 2008-01-21.
6. ^ Santoro, M.; Gorelli, FA; Bini, R; Ruocco, G; Scandolo, S; Crichton, WA (2006). "Amorphous silica-like carbon dioxide". Nature 441 (7095): 857–860. doi:10.1038/nature04879. PMID 16778885.
7. ^ Priestley, Joseph; Hey, Wm (1772). "Observations on Different Kinds of Air". Philosophical Transactions 62: 147–264. doi:10.1098/rstl.1772.0021. http://web.lemoyne.edu/~GIUNTA/priestley.html.
8. ^ Davy, Humphry (1823). "On the Application of Liquids Formed by the Condensation of Gases as Mechanical Agents" (PDF). Philosophical Transactions 113: 199–205. doi:10.1098/rstl.1823.0020.
9. ^ Duane, H.D. Roller; Thilorier, M. (1952). "Thilorier and the First Solidification of a "Permanent" Gas (1835)". Isis 43 (2): 109–113. doi:10.1086/349402.
10. ^ Strassburger, Julius (1969). Blast Furnace Theory and Practice. New York: American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers.
11. ^ a b Pierantozzi, Ronald (2001). "Carbon Dioxide". Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. Wiley. doi:10.1002/0471238961.0301180216090518.a01.pub2.
12. ^ Stafford, Ned (2007). "Future crops: The other greenhouse effect". Nature 448: 7153. doi:10.1038/448526a.
13. ^ Clayton, Mark (2006-01-11). "Algae - like a breath mint for smokestacks". Christian Science Monitor. Algae - like a breath mint for smokestacks - CSMonitor.com. Retrieved 2007-10-11.
14. ^ Davidson, Sarah (2005-01-17). "Sweet and environmentally beneficial discovery: Plastics made from orange peel and a greenhouse gas". Cornell News. Cornell News: Making plastic from oranges. Retrieved 2007-09-09.
15. ^ Austell, J Michael (2005). "CO2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery Needs - Enhanced Fiscal Incentives". Exploration & Production: the Oil & Gas Review. CO2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery Needs - Enhanced Fiscal Incentives. Retrieved 2007-09-28.
16. ^ "**broken link removed**". The Coca-Cola Company. 2006-06-05. **broken link removed**. Retrieved 2007-10-11.
17. ^ "**broken link removed**". R744.com. 2007-06-28. **broken link removed**.
18. ^ "**broken link removed**". ETH Zurich. 2006-08-31. **broken link removed**.
19. ^ NASA Earth Fact Sheet
20. ^ Dr. Pieter Tans (3 May 2008) "Annual CO2 mole fraction increase (ppm)" for 1959-2007 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Earth System Research Laboratory, Global Monitoring Division (additional details.)
21. ^ "Climate and CO2 in the Atmosphere". Climate and CO2 in the Atmosphere. Retrieved 2007-10-10.
22. ^ Berner, Robert A.; Kothavala, Zavareth (2001). "GEOCARB III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time" (PDF). American Journal of Science 301: 182–204. doi:10.2475/ajs.301.2.182. https://www.electro-tech-online.com/custompdfs/2009/12/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf. Retrieved 2008-02-15.
23. ^ "**broken link removed**". NOAA News Online, Story 2412. 2005-03-31. **broken link removed**.
24. ^ Sigurdsson, Haraldur; Houghton, B. F. (2000). Encyclopedia of volcanoes. San Diego: Academic Press. ISBN 012643140X.
25. ^ "Volcanic Gases and Their Effects". Volcanic Gases and Their Effects. Retrieved 2007-09-07.
26. ^ Doney, Scott C.; Naomi M. Levine (2006-11-29). "How Long Can the Ocean Slow Global Warming?". Oceanus. WHOI : Oceanus : How Long Can the Ocean Slow Global Warming?. Retrieved 2007-11-21.
27. ^ Garrison, Tom (2004). Oceanography: An Invitation to Marine Science. Thomson Brooks. pp. 125. ISBN 0534408877.
28. ^ Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, IPCC
29. ^ **broken link removed**
30. ^ Blom, T.J.; W.A. Straver; F.J. Ingratta; Shalin Khosla; Wayne Brown (2002-12). "**broken link removed**". **broken link removed**. Retrieved 2007-06-12.
31. ^ Global Warming? What a load of poppycock! by Professor David Bellamy Daily Mail, July 9, 2004
32. ^ F. Woodward and C. Kelly (1995). "The influence of CO2 concentration on stomatal density". New Phytologist 131: 311–327. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.1995.tb03067.x.
33. ^ Bert G. Drake; Gonzalez-Meler, Miquel A.; Long, Steve P. (1997). "More efficient plants: A Consequence of Rising Atmospheric CO2?". Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 48: 609. doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.48.1.609.
34. ^ Loladze, I (2002). "Rising atmospheric CO2 and human nutrition: toward globally imbalanced plant stoichiometry?". Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17: 457. doi:**broken link removed**.
35. ^ a b c d e Davidson, Clive. 7 February 2003. "Marine Notice: Carbon Dioxide: Health Hazard". Australian Maritime Safety Authority.
36. ^ "Graphical map of CO2". ESRL Global Monitoring Division - CarbonTracker.
37. ^ Gowda Shilpa (2 November 2007). "**broken link removed**". **broken link removed**.
38. ^ "Inhaled carbon dioxide increases brain acidity and evokes fear behavior". 26 November 2009. Inhaled carbon dioxide increases brain acidity and evokes fear behavior: Study.
39. ^ Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Chemical Sampling Information: Carbon Dioxide. Retrieved 5 June 2008 from: **broken link removed**
40. ^ Lambertsen, C. J. (1971). "**broken link removed**". Environmental Biomedical Stress Data Center, Institute for Environmental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center (Philadelphia, PA) IFEM Report No. 2-71. **broken link removed**. Retrieved 2008-05-02.
41. ^ Glatte Jr H. A., Motsay G. J., Welch B. E. (1967). "**broken link removed**". Brooks AFB, TX School of Aerospace Medicine Technical Report SAM-TR-67-77. **broken link removed**. Retrieved 2008-05-02.
42. ^ How are people able to breathe inside a submarine?
43. ^ a b c d "Carbon dioxide". solarnavigator.net. CARBON DIOXIDE. Retrieved 2007-10-12.
44. ^ "How much carbon dioxide do humans contribute through breathing?". Frequent Questions - Emissions | Climate Change | U.S. EPA. Retrieved 2009-04-30.

 

[BrownOut]

It is this from NASA that has the quantity I used:

19 ^ NASA Fact Sheet

 

[killivolt]

Maybe this will help.

If you guys have objection to my review, that is fine. Are you guys OK with citing Wikipedia in a research submission? Or horrible syntax and spelling? I don't think such things would typically pass peer review and certainly it wouldn't if the submitting researcher argued with the reviewers that it was OK.

Socrates who also lends his name to the concepts of Socratic irony and the Socratic method, or elenchus. The latter remains a commonly used tool in a wide range of discussions, and is a type of pedagogy in which a series of questions are asked not only to draw individual answers, but to encourage fundamental insight into the issue at hand.

I just thought I would lend a hand to an idealistic way of approaching the fundamentally skewed argument of discussing and reproof.

Get back to the basics.


Further reading may help? or hinder. I don't know.

Socrates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

kv

 

[tcmtech]

As far as brownouts presented data of irrefutable proof the numbers given so far show his perspective ends with a human induced heat gain estimated at .3 -.6 watts per SQ meter or about .02 to .04 percent of the typical energy from sunlight per Sq Meter.

The known levels of human produced CO2 and other green house gases work out to a oddly very similar numerical value as well when calculated as a percentage of the gross volume of the atmosphere.

My statement of estimated findings as per post # 96.

Of the approximately 1% of the annual gross mass of CO2 produced on the planet us humans and all our dirty little efforts only contribute around 3% of that total gross mass of atmospheric CO2.
That means we are directly and confirmed responsible for around 3% of 1% of the total green house gasses. Or .03% of the annual volume produced which about a 30 PPM equivalent of the total mass of the estimated volume of the earths atmosphere.

Go figure?

My references were cited to a limited degree but still a poor and overall limited sample taken from presumed reputable sources but not to be overall of much greater accuracy and very doubtfully that they would ever be admissible either.

So what is someone else's opinion of the our two data sources and comparative end numbers?

Just curious.

 

[killivolt]

As far as brownouts presented data of irrefutable proof the numbers given so far show his perspective ends with a human induced heat gain estimated at .3 -.6 watts per SQ meter or about .02 to .04 percent of the typical energy from sunlight per Sq Meter.

So what is someone else's opinion of the our two data sources and comparative end numbers?

Just curious.

Tree ring data may refute your conclusions.

How did the dinosaurs die anyways.Were is that old stump.

kv

 

[tcmtech]

So whats the monkeys think Killivolt?

No human influence
Insufficient data
Or we are all cooked by next year?

 

[HarveyH42]

Tree ring data may refute your conclusions.

How did the dinosaurs die anyways.Were is that old stump.

kv

I'm still trying to figure out how any useful GW data is being drawn from tree growth rings. The width of of the rings only indicate favorable growth conditions. The majority of the tree's growth happens in the spring and early summer, then it moves on to reproduction, and then getting ready for the winter dormancy period. Pretty sure the yearly CO2 levels aren't trapped and preserved in the rings, or anything else for that matter. You can guess that there was a drought, forest fire, cold spells, if there is other data available to support.

I don't believe the layers of ice in the core samples that started the whole trend, give quite as much insight as we are lead to believe. It snows, thaws, freezes many times throughout the year. Read an article last week where they claim the ice caps will almost completely melt in the summer by 2030, some claim even sooner (if we don't act now... ). If the ice caps have mostly melted in the past, would that kind of erase thousands of years of ice history? Instead of the core samples representing thousands of years of data, maybe only a few hundred?

If this is the case, we still might be looking at some unpleasant times, but we got over it quickly in the past, and will do so again. It not something we are going to change, but we can do something to protect ourselves and property.

If we want a cleaner, more resource efficient planet, we should stop rebuilding old inefficient designs, and get out of the disposable/single use era.

 

[tcmtech]

If you want to read something very interesting try and find your local environmental studies actual 'Field notes and procedures' paperwork. Thats the actual, and in many cases, real notebooks the persons who did the sampling and reporting had with them in the field while they did their work of collecting the samples that everything is based on.

Those notes are what gets turned into the first level of data and the first formal reports are made from those notes. What you will find in many of them is honest comments and the real documented error levels used for converting the samples into raw data. Many of those sample reports will have documented error levels of 10% to 95%!!!!
It all gets saved and eventually sent the Federal archives but its the foundation that all of the information we all see in charts and graphs comes from.

For me that what was my eye opener years ago! Seeing that the majority of the data used is based on incredibly wide margins of error.

How many of you can build an accurate and working electronics circuit using components with that tolerances?

Or how would you like a contractor or carpenter to build your house using an acceptable error factor or general tolerances of +- 10% to 95% in all of his measurements and work?

 

[killivolt]

So whats the monkeys think Killivolt?

No human influence
Insufficient data
Or we are all cooked by next year?

The Monkeys want wiki to have a shot in the collective data. So, I thought I would throw in some reasoning. You have to start with the Basics.

They are the Mascots of wiki.

Symbolism

Obedience
see no commonalities and obey the authorities
Ignorance
hear no objection and stick to traditional moral principles
Fear
speak no objections and do not consider possible consequences


Monkey "lore" say's mankind will de-evolve back to swinging from trees.

After that the hole process will start over again.

kv

 

[tcmtech]

Monkey "lore" say's mankind will de-evolve back to swinging from trees.

After that the hole process will start over again.

Well obviously we have the art of poo flinging and screaming mastered. Now we just need to work on the upper body strength and we are good to go!

 

[killivolt]

Well obviously we have the art of poo flinging and screaming mastered. Now we just need to work on the upper body strength and we are good to go!

Golf Clap.

 

[kchriste]

If the ice caps have mostly melted in the past, would that kind of erase thousands of years of ice history? Instead of the core samples representing thousands of years of data, maybe only a few hundred?

Ummm. Perhaps you should look into the history of the early explorers to North America and their attempts to find the Northwest passage?

 

[HarveyH42]

Ummm\. Perhaps you should look into the history of the early explorers to North America and their attempts to find the Northwest passage?

I far as I know, the Native Americans, Indians, didn't have a written language. History wasn't one of my favorite subjects, but think we arrived in the 1600's, so makes about 400 years. How many years do the Ice Core guys claim is recorded in the samples?

Not big on history in general, perhaps other countries had arctic expeditions... Wouldn't think wooden ships would hold up well against ice, not sure if there are land routes, but can't imagine too many wanting to make such a trip.

 

[Mikebits]

I far as I know, the Native Americans, Indians, didn't have a written language. History wasn't one of my favorite subjects, but think we arrived in the 1600's, so makes about 400 years. How many years do the Ice Core guys claim is recorded in the samples?

Not big on history in general, perhaps other countries had arctic expeditions... Wouldn't think wooden ships would hold up well against ice, not sure if there are land routes, but can't imagine too many wanting to make such a trip.

Have a read .
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040611080100.htm
https://www.electro-tech-online.com/custompdfs/2009/12/ipics_oldaa.pdf

 

[HarveyH42]

Have a read .
Oldest Antarctic Ice Core Reveals Climate History
https://www.electro-tech-online.com/custompdfs/2009/12/ipics_oldaa-1.pdf

Had a read, but didn't see anything about how they translate the layers into years. Only read two of the other articles, on Science Daily. Still looked a little slant toward proving CO2 is going to kill us all, but only enough to keep the funding. Pretty mild politically, and appreciate that. Actually, seems like what is going on, has happened before, without human emissions. And it's only going to last another 15,000 years...

I do think this is a much more credible way of presenting the science, they didn't claim facts, when talking about hypothesis. They aren't willing to make any solid claims based on a single core sample, made it clear they needed at least two, which is good basic science.

Still not in a panic, 15,000 years seems like a very long time, considering my 100 years or so (less, if I get shot or something). The ice cores tell the history of the polar regions, but does that mean the same story in the tropics? Quite a few miles between ice caps. Still believe there is a lot more to all of this, and CO2 is only a very small part, of which we contribute, a small portion. Wonder what the recent volcanic activity has been doing to the CO2 numbers lately. Wonder if the exceed the agreed upon numbers...

 

[killivolt]

50% from chemical process now that is significant.

Worldwide CO2 emissions and global change

The cement industry is one of two primary producers of carbon dioxide (CO2), creating up to 5 percent of worldwide emissions of this gas. The embodied carbon dioxide (ECO2) of a tonne of concrete varies with mix design and is in the range of: 75–176 kg CO2/tonne 0.075 - 0.176 tonne CO2/tonne[23] Cement manufacture contributes greenhouse gases both directly through the production of carbon dioxide when calcium carbonate is heated, producing lime and carbon dioxide[24], and also indirectly through the use of energy, particularly if the energy is sourced from fossil fuels. The cement industry produces 5% of global man-made CO2 emissions, of which 50 % is from the chemical process, and 40 % from burning fuel.[25]
[edit]

CO2 uptake by concrete in the Biosphere 2 project building

A deficit of CO2 was observed in the mass balance of the gases in the closed atmosphere environments of the Biosphere 2 project. It was found that the respiration rate was faster than the photosynthesis resulting in a slow decrease of oxygen. An unresolved question accompanied the oxygen decline: the corresponding increase in carbon dioxide did not appear in the mass balance calculations. This concealed the underlying process until an investigation by Severinghaus et al. (1994) of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory using isotopic analysis showed that carbon dioxide was reacting with exposed concrete inside Biosphere 2 to form calcium carbonate, thereby sequestering the carbon dioxide.[26][27] After being poured, concrete can absorb CO2 for up to 5 years until fully cured.

Recalibrating the human carbon footprint from wastewater.

http://environment.yale.edu/raymond/recent/ES-9016393.pdf

Plastic in the ocean and elsewhere.

**broken link removed**

kv

Edit: Taken from wiki

 

[kchriste]

but think we arrived in the 1600's, so makes about 400 years. How many years do the Ice Core guys claim is recorded in the samples?

That was my point. You claimed that the polar icecaps totally melted in the "last few hundred years", thus erasing any ice core samples, with the statement:

Instead of the core samples representing thousands of years of data, maybe only a few hundred?

Which was almost as ridiculous as ferrying sea water to the moon with space tankers.

 

[ke5frf]

That was my point. You claimed that the polar icecaps totally melted in the "last few hundred years", thus erasing any ice core samples, with the statement:

Which was almost as ridiculous as ferrying sea water to the moon with space tankers.

I think you are "reading something" into his statement that isn't there.

Would icecaps have to "totally melt" to be compromised in some way? Not that I doubt our ability to stratify ice core timelines mind you, but if the top layer of ice melted, say even 150 years worth, then new snow and ice were deposited on top, and if this were a regularly occuring event...say a warm period capable of such metling occured evry 1000 years, how would the gaps be filled in?

Jeez, why am I asking you this?. I think I'll read a book on the subject next time I stop at the university library. I don't rely on internet experts on information any more than I do Wikipedia.

 

[Mikebits]

I think you are "reading something" into his statement that isn't there.

Would icecaps have to "totally melt" to be compromised in some way? Not that I doubt our ability to stratify ice core timelines mind you, but if the top layer of ice melted, say even 150 years worth, then new snow and ice were deposited on top, and if this were a regularly occuring event...say a warm period capable of such metling occured evry 1000 years, how would the gaps be filled in?

Jeez, why am I asking you this?. I think I'll read a book on the subject next time I stop at the university library. I don't rely on internet experts on information any more than I do Wikipedia.

Many regions of the Antarctic have never reached melting temperatures, therefore the ice records have not been tainted by melting.

 

[kchriste]

I think you are "reading something" into his statement that isn't there.

I don't think so.

Read an article last week where they claim the ice caps will almost completely melt in the summer by 2030, some claim even sooner (if we don't act now... ). If the ice caps have mostly melted in the past, would that kind of erase thousands of years of ice history? Instead of the core samples representing thousands of years of data, maybe only a few hundred?

What Harvey42 doesn't seem to "get" is that if the ice caps did any appreciable melting in the past 1000 years, then it would be recorded in Greek, Italian, English, & American, history that extensive flooding of coastal cities occurred. It is not.

Jeez, why am I asking you this?

I don't know. You seem to have made your mind up anyway.