Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 6th September 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Climate



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Many analyses of density by respected chemists show that in the 1940s the density was over 400ppmv (parts per million by volume), compared with today's 387. Why is this measurement always suppressed? Because it will spoil all the climate scare stories.
Robert Pate

Minnigaff, Wigtownshire




The full article contains 46 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 13 May 2008 8:08 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Plodjfriss, Hammer of the Numpties,

Edinburgh 14/05/2008 00:25:17
Density of ...?
2

GlenB,

Skye 14/05/2008 00:31:54
Maybe that was just a mini gaff from Wigtownshire - ho hum.
3

truthsleuth,

14/05/2008 01:10:45
So what has happened in the intervening period ? did it drop below significantly below 400 then rise to 387.
If so it does not disprove Accelerated Climate Change theories but it does seem to confirm we can do something about these levels and to my mind prevention will be much better than (no) cure.
4

Isonomia,

Lenzie 14/05/2008 01:47:07
The simple truth is that a lot of people make a lot of money by scaring the public into believing in global warming. It was the same with the millenium bug, people would buy special carrots if some "expert" told them it was "millenium safe".

But like all such scares, when the sea levels fail to rise, when the storms fail to flatten everyone's house, the polar bears appear to be doing better than ever, when the weather looks much like it always has, and even the most gullible member of the public can tell for themselves that we are not heading toward impending doom. ... then these "experts" find another scare to make their money.
5

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 14/05/2008 07:58:25
GlenB

Very good. I like it!

Can't wait for Slioch, Fred and Guthrie to join us to ignite another yet boring debate on MMGW. Gotta love those guys for thier shear tenacity!

Anybody noticed how this summer is shaping up to be, um, erm, normal?
6

Unimpressed one,

14/05/2008 08:22:56
"(I)t does seem to confirm we can do something about these levels and to my mind prevention will be much better than (no) cure."

Ah, the good old greenie precautious approach, a concept which is alien to every species on this planet, except of course Greenius ridiculatus.
7

Unimpressed one,

14/05/2008 08:24:33
#5, "Anybody noticed how this summer is shaping up to be, um, erm, normal?"

Yup, typical Scottish driech summer.
8

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 14/05/2008 08:29:06
Pate quotes no valid, checkable sources for his data. Most unscientific. What is he hiding?
9

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 14/05/2008 08:53:16
World War II.
10

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 14/05/2008 08:58:59
9

So where is the spike for WWI?
11

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 14/05/2008 09:02:10
I must confess Robert Pate's letters have a certain piquancy: not only is the science behind them almost invariably mangled beyond recognition and based on false data, but there is usually a delightful howler lurking somewhere which illustrates the profundity of his misunderstandings ....

This time, as Plodjfriss has hinted, it is that little word "density". No, Robert, you meant "concentration" of CO2.

As for, "in the 1940s the density was over 400ppmv ... Why is this measurement always suppressed?"

Accurate measurements of CO2 were begun in 1958 by Charles Keeling on Mauna Loa when it was realised how much measurements taken in populated and vegetated areas (ie almost everywhere that measurements had been taken up to that time) were influenced by local sources and sinks of CO2. Animals, and fossil fuel consumption produce relatively large amounts of CO2, whereas growing plants remove it. Because the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere is very low, any local addition or subtraction can make the measurement wildly inaccurate. The 400ppmv to which Robert alludes is one of those wildly inaccurate measurements.

How do we know the Mauna Loa series (which shows a fairly steady (but increasing) increase in CO2, with annual wriggles) is accurate?

Firstly, because it shows those annual wriggles, caused by the intake of CO2 by northern hemisphere vegetation. If the data was being disturbed by contamination, those wriggles - the fine detail of the record - would not show up.

Secondly, (and to the point of Robert's letter) because the results tie up with the CO2 concentrations derived from several later ice cores, which show CO2 concentrations going back 800,000 years.

The picture of CO2 that all this detailed research shows is that CO2 concentrations did not exceed 290ppmv in all of that 800,000 years until recent times when they are now at 387ppmv. And also that CO2 concentrations are now increasing at a rate some SIXTY times faster than at any time
12

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 14/05/2008 09:04:31
Contd.
And also that CO2 concentrations are now increasing at a rate some SIXTY times faster than at any time during those 800,000 years.

So, the answer to Robert's query as to why reports of CO2 above 400ppmv in the 1940s are ignored is: "because we know they were wrong."



13

Toom,

14/05/2008 09:24:06
You cannot simply look at CO2 levels in isolation from the complex interaction with other factors.

The pollution in the 1940s was largely produced by the predominance of the burning of dirty fossil fuels, primarily coal. These contains much higher amounts of smoke/sulphur particles which reflect sunlight back into space, giving a cooling effect which counters the greenhouse gas effects of the CO2.

Since then, much more of our energy consumption has been of relatively cleaner gas and petrol, and use of cleaner coal in power stations. This has reduced the smoke particle concentration cooling effect and emphasised the greenhouse effect. The effects of the large expansion of coal-burning in eg China have yet to be seen.
14

ianH,

Balerno 14/05/2008 09:36:42
Siloch raises a point which I have never really understood, perhaps some one could clarify, Why is it a good idea to measure global CO2 on Mauna Loa, an active volcano, does this location complicate matters just a little? or is that the point.
15

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 14/05/2008 09:43:48
The amount of CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels in the 1940s was a small fraction of what it is today.

Total global emissions in millions of tons (first figure carbon, second as carbon dioxide) are as follows:

1940 1,299 mtons/year C (= 4,763 mtons/year CO2)

2004 7,910 mtons/year C (= 29,000 mtons/year CO2).

See:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2004.ems
16

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 14/05/2008 09:53:08
#14 IanH

If the Mauna Loa volcano was producing CO2 in sufficient quantities to disturb the record of CO2 measurements, then that disturbance would be apparent in the record. It isn't. The record shows the fine detail of the tiny changes of CO2 with the seasons, caused by the growth and decay of vegetation in the northern hemisphere (which has more land than the south). This seasonal variation - the wriggle - would be destroyed if it was being contaminated, but it hasn't been - it is there in the record continuously since 1958.

See:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
17

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 14/05/2008 10:52:52
"Because it will spoil all the climate scare stories."

Quite correct.

#3:

"If so it does not disprove Accelerated Climate Change theories but it does seem to confirm we can do something about these levels and to my mind prevention will be much better than (no) cure."

Climate change theories are just that---theories. In other words they are suggestions as to what MIGHT be the case. You don't need to disprove them, the onus is on the perpetrators to PROVE their validity---something that they have singularly failed to do.

I also fail to see why, if CO2 levels had dropped from 400ppm and then risen again that is follows that this is down to man. You are assuming that is the case, based upon unproven theories. What kind of science is that?

There are many, many things which can affect the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and I am getting fed up with being continually told that any minute change in CO2 concentration is "undoubtedly" down to human activity. The chances are that it is not.

And the chances that we are affecting the weather are even more a rank outsider.

I agree with the principle of not wasting energy or resources but that is a completely separate issue to the earths climate.

I fail to see how so many people are stupid enough to be taken in by all this rubbish. Can you not see that it is only an excuse to tax and restrict us more and more?
18

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 14/05/2008 11:32:16
So Slioch, all CO2 measurments before 1958 are not accurate and can be ignored?

Presumeably, therefore, all other measurements beofore a similar date can also be ignored as they will invariably not be accurate either?

Also, only measurements taken from a volcano can be considered?
19

ianH,

Balerno 14/05/2008 12:35:40
Interesting data on http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/, not quite sure it supports the argument intended, next years results should be interesting
20

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/05/2008 13:47:50
IanH- CO2 is measured at other places on the earth.
More, including a map, can be found here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

I feel a letter to the editor coming on. Robert Pate really needs to get out more and read what the scientists have to say, rather than jumping to conclusions.

21

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/05/2008 13:50:10
DAve #18- stop being stupid. THe CO2 measurements before 1958 are to be treated with caution because they are known to be wildly innacurate. This has nothing to do with any other measurements of stuff related to global warming. Also, as I have said above, CO2 is measured elsewhere on the planet.
22

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/05/2008 13:53:48
Alternative reality, #17- perhaps you can tell us what else affects CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and by how much.
Then, you can explain how CO2 levels dropped down to 280ppm after WW2, and where all the CO2 went to?
23

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/05/2008 14:09:06
Those of you genuinely interested in the science can find an interesting wee paper on the CO2 levels in an urban area here:
http://www.uni-duisburg-essen.de/imperia/md/content/geographie/klimatologie/henninger2004.pdf#search=%22co2%20urban%20mixing%20ratio%22
24

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/05/2008 14:17:30
This particular fantasy of Pate's would appear to be another run of Beck's silliness from last year. Oddly enough the Warwick Hughes website which had been hosting Becks stuff doesn't seem to have it anymore, at least not the links I have found- in fact a month by month search of the blog indicates that post number 64 has been excised from the record!
Hahaha, so much for supression.

So maybe we should lay bets as to what stuff he will claim is wrong next. It'll probably mention the PDO and weather.
25

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 14/05/2008 14:32:02
#17
Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head

"Climate change theories are just that---theories. In other words they are suggestions as to what MIGHT be the case. You don't need to disprove them, the onus is on the perpetrators to PROVE their validity"

You clearly misunderstand how science works. Karl Popper, perhaps the twentieth century's most respected philosopher of science, pointed out that science advances by the attempt at falsification of hypotheses and theories, rather than by proving them. Scientific theories are never regarded as proven in the absolute sense that in geometry one can formally prove that the sum of the angles of a triangle equal the sum of the angles in a straight line. So, actually, the onus IS upon finding evidence to falsify the theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose concentration has been increased by human activity. Theories are tested by making predictions, which are then compared with evidence. If the evidence doesn't fit the theory then it may have to be modified or even abandoned. If it does fit the evidence then the theory is verified, but it is not regarded as proven.

All that you offer to this debate is your own prejudiced views based on no evidence whatsoever, washed down with an unhealthy dose of paranoia.
26

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 14/05/2008 14:49:44
#24 Guthrie

Yes, I last came across Beck's nonsense on the Physorg site 30th April, reporting on the "pause in global warming" forecast in Nature by Keenlyside et al. I commented then:

"Beck's fig. 13 purportedly shows shows CO2 concentrations from 1920 to 1961. In 1935, CO2 concentration is given as 320ppmv, and about eighteen months later about 430ppmv. That is an increase of over 100ppmv in little over a year.
The present CO2 concentration is 385ppmv, which represents 3000gigatonnes of CO2, so an increase of 100ppmv would require the addition of about 780gigatonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere. (all of the above figures are easily verifiable - you can check those figures yourself)

780gts is a huge amount of CO2. Where did it come from? What caused it? Where is the C12/C13 isotope ratio spike that would have to accompany such a dramatic change (there isn't one). Beck doesn't address ANY of those obvious questions, for which there is no conceivable answer (no it isn't a volcano, their annual contribution is minute, even biggies like Pinatuvo).

That is probably where Robert Pate gets his 400ppmv + of CO2 from. It really is pathetic. Garbage like Beck's gets picked up and touted about as if it is gospel by people who couldn't give a damn about scientific probity and rectitude and have no scientific ability, simply because it tells them what they want to believe. Meanwhile immensely careful dedicated work that stands as an exemplar for the accumulation of reliable information, such as that done by Keeling and others at Mauna Loa is vilified and mistrusted by fools, simply because it doesn't tell them what they want to know.
27

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/05/2008 15:59:09
Well. we'll see if my letter gets published. Its about 78 words, so has a good chance.
28

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/05/2008 16:01:02
Rabett run has some good posts on the original science, oh how I wish I was still at university...
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/10/amateur-night.html

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/04/rabett-reads.html
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/04/found-in-margins-recently-eli-has-been.html
29

Unimpressed one,

14/05/2008 17:03:26
You climate deniers can rant as much as you want. The facts remain undisputable: the earth's climate is back to 'normal', whatever that means, and CO2 emissions have increased but temperatures have not followed. THE THEORY OF MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT VALID. Only an imbelcile, politician, scientist tapping onto the gravy train or a green bam would cling to the alternatives.
30

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 14/05/2008 18:04:52
No, only an imbecile would conclude at this point that the science is all wrong. COme back in a decade and we'll see how things are then.
31

GlenB,

14/05/2008 21:29:00
Amongst all these figures being bandied about has anyone mentioned that the human contribution to the annual world carbon flux in just 0.035%.

Water vapour at 40,000 ppm plays a big influence in the system.

And the IPCC models leave out things they do not yet fully understand. Which in reality means most of what influences the climatic system.
32

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 14/05/2008 23:41:51
#31 GlenB

"Amongst all these figures being bandied about has anyone mentioned that the human contribution to the annual world carbon flux in just 0.035%."

No they haven't. Probably because, firstly, it isn't 0.035%, and secondly because the annual anthropogenic contribution to the natural carbon dioxide flux is irrelevant when considering the forcing of the total anthropogenic CO2 contribution, which is now about 38% (387/280*100 - 100). (Though, I must confess that inaccurate or irrelevant claims are no bar to their appearance on this site).

"Water vapour plays a big influence in the system."
As is acknowledged and accounted for in all competent assessments, including the IPCC.

"And the IPCC models leave out things they do not yet fully understand." Such as melting of the Greenland ice cap, which means that the IPCC predictions are very much erring on the side of caution with respect to sea level rise. Which means sea level rise is very likely to be much greater than that suggested in the IPCC 2007 report.
33

Isonomia,

Lenzie 15/05/2008 07:51:25
I notice all the letters seem to have disabled comments today (Thursday).

If anyone would like to comment on climate change may I suggest we try my local newsgroup on: http://www.lenzie.org.uk/forum/?pg=2

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.