Comments on: Earth killer – composite trigonometry CO2 graph

By: Bruce Kershaw

Bruce Kershaw — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:07:57 +0000

All the O2 we breathe today came from CO2, if there was no carbon based life (plants and trees) caused by CO2, causing new carbon based life, (you and me,)the Air would be all CO2, and there would be no nitogen caused by decomposition of dead life. There are a dozen causes of climate change missing from the U.N. study and 175 years of CO2 science missing from the U.N. study, CO2 has been a proven refrigerant for the last 175 years. Yes we have climate change for the last 4 billion plus years, no it is not caused by the cause of all carbon based life. Co2 is the by product of warming not the cause, there is 70 times more CO2 in the ocean than in the Air, life comes from the ocean. please go to http://co2u.info, Thank you, Bruce A. Kershaw

By: Alan Cooper

Alan Cooper — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 06:37:59 +0000

@Paul C. This may be taking us away from the main intent of Murray’s post (which was just to show how to construct a mathematical function whose graph passes through a particular kind of data set), but with regard to ice core bubbles and mountain tops, I wouldn’t necessarily expect the CO2 concentrations to match because the seasonal variation might be washed out due to the time taken for the ice to form, and some gas in the bubble might dissolve in the water that was created as the snow compacted to ice. (However, unless CO2 can dissolve into and migrate through the ice, I *would* expect that the concentrations in ice core bubbles at different depths might be directly related to that in the air at the times they were formed.)

By: GARY KING

GARY KING — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 00:10:28 +0000

Why not use Dick Cheney’s 1% Doctrine – If there’s a one percent chance of a terrorist threat to the USA becoming real, then it should be treated as if it WILL IN FACT come to pass, and acted on.
Global warming, if the predictions are accurate, is definitely a threat to not only the USA, but the rest of the world as well. Why we choose to deny it until it bites us in the as$ is not proactive, but reckless.
By the way, some of the same public relations individuals that were paid to convince us that cigarettes aren’t harmful are now employed by the oil companies in the attempt to distort and water down evidence on global warming.

By: Paul C.

Paul C. — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 23:04:54 +0000

I’m sorry to say that this blog will be as subjective and qualitative as the rest have been. First though, I’d like to say that I want to see an expression/model for the discrepancy between the long-running ice core CO2 data and the actual measured data from Hawaii. Although at the same time, I know it will only support my beliefs. As it could be interpreted to support the beliefs of the other side.
I’m just sad to see an exercise so fundamental in understanding everything ignored by people who can’t focus on their work, bills, and taxes let alone anything else.
-sorry

By: UKPhil

UKPhil — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 20:59:59 +0000

I am saturated with the content of this blog – I really feel for the poor student who started it all in innocence.
It has been hijacked by extremists .. I see this more and more all over the net .. it’s like there’s these boxing arenas popping up everywhere and the prizefighters go there to slag it out with all their ifs and buts and clever language and their clever clever links to obscure publications where you will find contradictory evidence to … well, whatever you want really.
I implore you all to take only this from the entire thread: if a proclamation went out tomorrow that the earth was flat, what would happen (yes, I dare you to try it!) … every scientist worth his/her salt would ignore it, but there would be an avalanche of ‘flat earth believers’ who would see their chance to finally turn the books on everyone and they’d sign up in droves. That would be of no consequence. On the matter of AGW however … how sad, and how sad for our planet. It’s an old cry “empty vessels make most noise” – so true today as in the days of our (more fortunate) ancestors.

By: Veretekk

Veretekk — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 04:43:48 +0000

Also, regarding the comments earlier in this post about the comparison of Venus vs. Earth. Yes, Venus’ dense CO2 atmosphere keeps surface temperatures on that planet hot enough to melt lead. However, Venus’ atmosphere is 93 times the mass of our atmosphere on Earth, with surface pressure 92 times that of Earth.

With that difference in atmospheric mass, and the fact that Venus’ atmosphere is mostly CO2, while our atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen, you really cannot compare the two planets in an argument about global warming.

By: Veretekk

Veretekk — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:14:51 +0000

Well stated arguments, however, approximately 97% of all CO2 put into the atmosphere is caused by natural sources. If all humans disappeared today, over time, we would expect to gradually see a decrease in global CO2 output down to the natural level only.

The question is, would a complete elimination of all human produced CO2 dramatically alter the course? We should expect the growth in global CO2 to slow by the same amount of human produced CO2, but would natural sources continue to increase atmospheric CO2 levels?

With all human derived CO2 being eliminated in this scenario, I suspect we would still see a continued rise in atmospheric CO2 due to the naturally produced CO2.

By: Fred Haynie

Fred Haynie — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 14:47:49 +0000

Eschatologist,

Don’t buy the exponential rise in CO2 concentrations statistically associated with the exponential burning of fossil fuels. Being trained in math you will find that a segment of a sign wave will give you a better fit of the Mauna Loa data than an exponential curve. First, factor out the seasonal cycle. Then fit the data to sine(2*PI*years/a+b), where a is the cycle length in years and b positions the cycle. Use trial and error for a and b to maximize R square. Hint, start with “a” at 350 and vary “b” to maximize R square. then change “a” and repeat. Continue the process until you have found the maximum. This is a natural cycle that can be projected into the future. I predict that CO2 concentrations will continue to rise but at a slower rate and max out in the last half of this century between 500ppm and 600ppm.

By: eschatologist

eschatologist — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:24:22 +0000

Global warming and CO2 increasing are two different issues.

CO2 increase has a logarithmic affect on the increase in temperature:
[link to junkscience.com no longer available].

But as the author carefully is pointing out, the increase in CO2 may be exponential. That might mean a nearly linear (more or less) increase in temperatures, should the co2 increase continue exponentially.

As a skeptic, I salute the logic in this blog. But we cannot ignore logic from any source simply because of its source. Even should the “skeptics” be “deniers” who have no knowledge or degree (I’m a trained mathemetician, but not a climate scientist).

So where does this leave us? If more CO2 is being produced than can be absorbed by the Earth, and it increases exponentially, we will have negative affects. At the very least, if we reach 2000 ppm of CO2, it will make it difficult to breathe and we will have past the point where plants are helped by having more co2. That would truly be a runaway effect, if plants could no longer efficiently absorb co2, and it became difficult to breathe. But the temperature would still only have raised a few degrees.

In other words, exponential CO2 increase may cause huge problems even if global warming is overstated.

By: Mike Razar

Mike Razar — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:57:35 +0000

Graeme…thats a great example of what’s wrong with politicized science. You don’t care about the truth. As it turns out, I do not work for any company. But even if I did, what difference would it make? The science of climate fluctuations is in its infancy. I am unaware of a single controlled experiment to verify that a model made predictions consistent with out-of-sample experimental data.
It is bad enough that the math and stat reasoning in the social sciences is often nonsense. Now you want to infect the hard sciences with your ignorance.
Perhaps you can reveal what snake oil company YOU work for.