Society/Culture Historical temperature record proving climate change a result of fraudulent statistics?

[bit_pattern]

Gee, Ripper, where is this ocean cooling, because I'm sure as shit not seeing it!

This analysis is performed in An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 (Murphy 2009) which adds up heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice. To calculate the Earth's total heat content, the authors used data of ocean heat content from the upper 700 metres. They included heat content from deeper waters down to 3000 metres depth. They computed atmospheric heat content using the surface temperature record and the heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (eg - the energy required to melt ice) were also included.

Figure 1: Total Earth Heat Content from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.

A look at the Earth's total heat content clearly shows global warming has continued past 1998. So why do surface temperature records show 1998 as the hottest year on record? Figure 1 shows the heat capacity of the land and atmosphere are small compared to the ocean (the tiny brown sliver of "land + atmosphere" also includes the heat absorbed to melt ice). Hence, relatively small exchanges of heat between the atmosphere and ocean can cause significant changes in surface temperature.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-global-warming-is-still-happening.html

Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003–2008 (Schuckmann 2009) analyses ocean temperature measurements by the Argo network, constructing a map of ocean heat content down to 2000 metres (H/T to Chris for bringing it to my attention). This is significantly deeper than other recent papers that focus on upper ocean heat, only going down to 700 metres. They constructed the following time series of global ocean heat:

Figure 1: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2.
Globally, the oceans have still been steadily accumulating heat right to the end of 2008. Combined with the results of Murphy 2009 who finds the planet accumulating heat right to 2003, we now see a picture of unbroken global warming. Over the last 5 years, the oceans have been absorbing heat at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm−2.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-we-know-global-warming-is-happening-Part-2.html

 

[Ripper]

Gee, Ripper, where is this ocean cooling, because I'm sure as shit not seeing it!

From 2007 1/2 in your own graph.

Matchs the non start of cycle24 nicely.

There will be a lag of course but the high SST's and the low wind speeds are signs that the oceans are shedding heat quite quickly.


http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/09/global-oceanic-climate-update-for-august-2009/

 

[bit_pattern]

Do you see taht trend line drawn throught the chart?

And, lmao at you linking to Roy Spencer while trying to discredit RC

 

[Ripper]

Oh and I know you can't just been avoiding it, so here is a link to Enting's review of Plimer's, just in case you'd lost the link

http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer2a0.pdf

More telling are couple of things I was suspect about that were not contested.

Page 416

The raw data from Mauna loa is "edited" by an operator who deleteds what is cosidered poor data. Some 82% of the raw data is "edited" leaving just 18% of the raw data measurements for statisical anayisis. With such savage editing of raw data, whatever trend one wants can be shown.

Page 418

the raw data is an average of 4 samples from hour to hour. In 2004 there were a possible 8784 measurements. Due to instrumental error 1102 samples had no data, 1085 were not used due to up slope winds*, 655 had lrge variability within 1 hour but were used in the offical figure , 866 had large hour by hour variability but were not used

*Upslope winds give lower readings

Page 419

The lowest figure measured since 1812, the 270 ppm figure, is taken as the
pre-industrialisation yardstick. The IPCC want it both ways. They are prepared to use the
lowest determination by the Pettenkofer method as a yardstick yet do not acknowledge
Pettenkofer method measurements showing CO2 concentrations far higher than now many
times since 1812.

That bit was ignored except to correct the figure from 270 to 280ppm..

Here is a good read from 1955.

http://www.pensee-unique.fr/001_mwr-083-10-0225.pdf

At the time Callendar delivered his 1938
paper [6], Mr. J. H. Coste suggested that the accepted
CO, content hadn't the turn of the century been considered
to be about 0.04 percent, and not the 0.029 percent indicated
by the measurements Callendar cited. Mr. Coste
then asked, since the value, 0.04 percent, is a higher percentage
than the average value of about 0.032 percent
Callendar found for the 1937 CO, content, can we be sure
that there has been any net increase at all in the percentage
of CO, in the atmosphere?

Does even the co2 data we get fit the title of the thread?

 

[Ripper]

Do you see taht trend line drawn throught the chart?

Yep , matchs the output of the sun. Only the sun can heat the oceans, the heat transfer to the oceans from the atmosphere is minor.Ever tried to heat your bath with a hair dryer?

 

[bit_pattern]

More telling are couple of things I was suspect about that were not contested.

I would have thought the 46 pages of listed errors would be enough to convince any reasonable, thinking person to conclude that Plimer is drawing all kinds of erroneous conclusions. But, I guess when people desperately want to believe something then they will unconditionally accept anything that reinforces that need to believe.

Page 416

Absolute piffle. The NOAA are quite open and transparent about how it calibrates data. If there is a problem in their methodology then it is there, plain as day, for all and sundry to point out those flaws.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

This is just vacuous conspiracy theorising, aimed at people who don't know any better about these sorts of processes.

And let's not pretend that Plimer knows what he is talking about in that chapter, Enting pokes several holes in his assumed understanding of how C is measured at Mauna Loa.

Look, I don't know enough about how data is measured, but are trying to suggest because of these points weren't addressed by Enting somehow negates all of the other glaring errors he made in that very chapter, often on the very same page?

Why do you continue to uncritically eat up everything Plimer says when he has been shown to be so abysmally mistaken on so many points, yet are prepared to dismiss the entire AGW theory on the basis some alleged minor mistakes in the theory?

(Not that I really expect an reply, you're pretty good at just ignoring anything that's a bit tto difficult to answer)

That bit was ignored except to correct the figure from 270 to 280ppm..

Here is a good read from 1955.

http://www.pensee-unique.fr/001_mwr-083-10-0225.pdf



Does even the co2 data we get fit the title of the thread?

A perfect example of what I was just saying! You claim that there are errors in the measurement of CO2 here and now in 2009, but uncritically accept a single paper using archaic methods from 1955! Unbelievable.

And, as for 1812, it's a good thing we have proxies that record quite accurately what CO2 concentrations of that year actually were!

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_co2.html

 

[bit_pattern]

Yep , matchs the output of the sun. Only the sun can heat the oceans, the heat transfer to the oceans from the atmosphere is minor.Ever tried to heat your bath with a hair dryer?

It does no such thing

How come there is no other correlation between ocean tempos and solar activity? And how come there is such a neat correlation betwen the ENSO and ocean temps?

What causes short term changes in ocean heat?

Over the past 40 years, global ocean heat content has shown a long term warming trend. However, the warming hasn't been monotonic. There are periods where ocean heat drops for several years before the warming trend resumes. On several occasions, this is due to large volcanic eruptions which cause a drop in global temperatures. On other occasions, upper ocean heat drops with no volcanic activity. What causes these breaks in warming?

Figure 1: global upper ocean heat content from 1955 to 2008. Blue line is yearly ocean heat content for the 0–700 m layer (Levitus 2008). Red line is the global mean stratospheric optical depth, indicating the timing of major volcanic eruptions (NASA GISS, data ends in 1999).

This question is examined in Interannual variability in upper ocean heat content, temperature, and thermosteric expansion on global scales (Willis 2004). Willis finds that short term, interannual variability in global upper ocean heat is strongly influenced by variability in the tropics, particularly in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. And much of the variation is related to the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

ENSO refers to a cycle between El Niño and La Niña conditions across the tropical eastern and central Pacific. In normal conditions, trade winds blow towards the west across the tropical Pacific. These winds pile up warm surface water in the west Pacific. This thickened layer of warm water depresses a layer of subsurface water called the thermocline, which lies between the warm surface waters and the much colder deep ocean. On the east Pacific, the warm surface waters are blown off shore and must be replaced. The replacement waters are the cooler waters from the lower parts of the ocean.

Figure 2: conditions in equatorial Pacific during normal conditions (no El Niño or La Niña). Image courtesy of NOAA.

During the La Niña phase, these conditions intensify. This leads to more cold water upwelling in the East Pacific. The thermocline rises as more cold water penetrates into the upper ocean. Sea-surface temperatures are colder than usual in the central and western Pacific.

Figure 3: conditions in equatorial Pacific during La Niña conditions. Image courtesy of NOAA.

How much does this cycle contribute to global upper ocean heat? Figure 4 shows heat content both globally (dashed line) and over the tropics (solid line, 20°N to 20°S). As La Niña intensified, heat content in the tropics decreased rapidly through the end of 1998 and the first half of 1999. Global heat also fell during this time, but somewhat less so, suggesting that some of the tropical heat may have been exported to higher latitudes. The cooling, both globally and in the tropics, gave way to rapid warming in mid-1999 with the subsiding of La Niña.

Figure 4: Interannual variability in heat content integrated over the tropics 20°N to 20°S (solid line) and over the entire globe (dashed line). Graph from Willis 2004.

This puts recent trends in upper ocean heat content in context. Leuliette 2009 discusses how weak El Niño conditions in 2006-2007 were followed by a moderate La Niña in mid-2007. Similarly, Cazenave 2009 suggests that the drop in upper ocean heat in mid-2007 could be related to the particularly strong recent La Niña cold phase.

Figure 5: Southern Oscillation Index (monthly values and 12 month average), courtesy of Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

Globally, upper ocean heat has dropped since mid-2007. However, if one focuses on one piece of the puzzle without understanding the broader picture of the physical mechanisms involved, it can lead to the erroneous conclusion that the long term warming has ended. By recognising that La Niña causes short term cooling in upper ocean waters and that we've been in La Niña conditions since mid-2007, we see that current ocean cooling is a case of internal variability imposed upon the long term trend.

Acknowledgements: thanks to John Cross for his feedback and research for this post.

 

[Ripper]

I would have thought the 46 pages of listed errors would be enough to convince any reasonable, thinking person to conclude that Plimer is drawing all kinds of erroneous conclusions. But, I guess when people desperately want to believe something then they will unconditionally accept anything that reinforces that need to believe.



Absolute piffle. The NOAA are quite open and transparent about how it calibrates data. If there is a problem in their methodology then it is there, plain as day, for all and sundry to point out those flaws.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

This is just vacuous conspiracy theorising, aimed at people who don't know any better about these sorts of processes.

And let's not pretend that Plimer knows what he is talking about in that chapter, Enting pokes several holes in his assumed understanding of how C is measured at Mauna Loa.

Look, I don't know enough about how data is measured, but are trying to suggest because of these points weren't addressed by Enting somehow negates all of the other glaring errors he made in that very chapter, often on the very same page?

Why do you continue to uncritically eat up everything Plimer says when he has been shown to be so abysmally mistaken on so many points, yet are prepared to dismiss the entire AGW theory on the basis some alleged minor mistakes in the theory?

(Not that I really expect an reply, you're pretty good at just ignoring anything that's a bit tto difficult to answer)



A perfect example of what I was just saying! You claim that there are errors in the measurement of CO2 here and now in 2009, but uncritically accept a single paper using archaic methods from 1955! Unbelievable.

And, as for 1812, it's a good thing we have proxies that record quite accurately what CO2 concentrations of that year actually were!

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_co2.html

That was the one thing in the book that I thought, "they wouldn't possibly do that, He must be making it up."

So I was very surprised to find that it was glossed over and the major flaw was him understating CO2 by 10PPM in the so called "debunking" that mainly complains of calibration errors of Graphs and even spelling mistakes.

Most other points of contention are where it goes against the IPPC conclusions and if you read the book Plimer actually describes various different theories that are around for the same topic without implicitly endorsing any.

You should read the book , there is a wealth of information in there .

Have you read the 1955 paper? It seems that the IPCC have revised the past downwards (like gisstemp does with temperature anomalies) yet again .

Somehow today we are told that the 90's & 00's are much hotter than the 30's yet:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/26/correcting-the-surface-temperature-record-for-uhi/

 

[bit_pattern]

Yeah, regional temp data, that disproves GLOBAL warming.

As for your "most other points of contention", what a crock, there is significant error after significant error, enough to fill 46 pages of notes.

You want to belive that AGW isn't happening, so are prepared to swallow no end of nonsense to reinforce that, and Plimer knows this psychology all to well and is taking full advantage of it by whipping up controversy in order to sell more books to the suckers. It is sad to see that an apparently smart bloke like yourself is so easily conned by it all.

Have you read the 1955 paper? It seems that the IPCC have revised the past downwards (like gisstemp does with temperature anomalies) yet again .

Or, the 1955 paper was WRONG and NASA have corrected their data to make it more accurate. Naaah, it must be a conspiracy!

 

[Ripper]

It does no such thing



How come there is no other correlation between ocean tempos and solar activity? And how come there is such a neat correlation betwen the ENSO and ocean temps?

That backs up what I was saying. No where did it say that the atmosphere heats the oceans.

ENSO makes the oceans release heat or retain heat.

We have just had an extremely high period of solar activity.

Even your mate Tamino was working on a 11 year lag of the ocean heat with his 2 box model even though he got severely beaten up by lucia.

Two Box Models & The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

 

[bit_pattern]

That backs up what I was saying. No where did it say that the atmosphere heats the oceans.

ENSO makes the oceans release heat or retain heat.

Who the heck said it did?

We have just had an extremely high period of solar activity.

It's been in decline since 2003

Even your mate Tamino was working on a 11 year lag of the ocean heat with his 2 box model even though he got severely beaten up by lucia.

Two Box Models & The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

LOL, beaten up because your side was saying it? Looks to me like Lucia got beaten up in her own comments section! She definitely got pummelled with the comments she made at Open Mind

 

[Ripper]

That was just the first of a few threads on the matter after Arthur Smith from the team came in to try to prove Tamino right.

Great reading , all of it really show the differences in thermal behavior between oceans and atmosphere.

 

[bit_pattern]

Pure Poison pose a question I've been asking myself about mmbers of this forum for a long time now

Let’s say that this person tends to mutter about how everyone else is part of some “couch collective” and that his extremist and evidence-deprived views aren’t given the respect they deserve – despite the fact that he is constantly being invited to talk to all sorts of audiences about those views.
And let’s say that this person’s conduct demonstrates a modus operandi that undermines informed and reasoned debate and tends to promote both uninformed condemnation and personal attacks on opponents.
My question is this – in that situation, what is the appropriate way to prevent that person from talking about the same nonsense until blood starts pouring out of your own ears?

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/10/11/a-question-of-etiquette/

 

[bit_pattern]

When will the deniers wake up, I mean really???

Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report

ScienceDaily (Oct. 9, 2009) — You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science.

A few titbits

"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

"Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, and geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history," she said.

...

"A slightly shocking finding," Tripati said, "is that the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different."

...

In the last 20 million years, key features of the climate record include the sudden appearance of ice on Antarctica about 14 million years ago and a rise in sea level of approximately 75 to 120 feet.

"We have shown that this dramatic rise in sea level is associated with an increase in carbon dioxide levels of about 100 parts per million, a huge change," Tripati said. "This record is the first evidence that carbon dioxide may be linked with environmental changes, such as changes in the terrestrial ecosystem, distribution of ice, sea level and monsoon intensity.

 

[medusala]

Well, he's not even a statistician, he has a BS in maths, but he can still publish, or at least submit a letter.

What makes you think his maths degree contained no statistics?

You really need to stay away from stats and economics.

It would help your argument no end if you stopped quoting from Real Climate.

Surely you can find someone with credibility to quote from not just propagandists like them and the extremist at GISS.

 

[medusala]

^^ You and Meds are a testament to how susceptible people are to well targeted lobby-group propaganda.

You have no idea re stats or economics and then come up with gibberish like this.

You are claiming the sky is falling in and now are stamping your feet because people are sceptical.

To counter this your mob just keep increasing the size of their lies.

Doesn't take much to see propaganda for what it is.

As for gullible see the Y2K thread were some actually still believe there was a real problem.

 

[medusala]

You know things aren't going your way when even the BBC decides it can no longer keep on the propaganda band wagon. No temperature increase, no consensus.

Dear oh dear, the wheels are falling off.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm

What happened to global warming?

By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

..

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over

 

[bit_pattern]

What makes you think his maths degree contained no statistics?

You really need to stay away from stats and economics.

It would help your argument no end if you stopped quoting from Real Climate.

Surely you can find someone with credibility to quote from not just propagandists like them and the extremist at GISS.

So NASA are extremists, Hadley are extremists, the worlds scientists are extremists. But you, your free market think tanks, a mining executive-cum-statistician, and a Fox News weatherman are all just fair-and-balanced truth seekers, fighting the good fight against the evils of... of... what exactly? A nefarious cabal of evil geniuses that the rest of the world call "scientists"?

Strange that you are on the side of Truth and Goodness yet you manage to lose every argument here to an unqualified, anonymous bum on the internet with no grasp of statistics or economics. That must be very galling for you Meds!

Three posts of bluster and outrage suggests that you do find it very, very galling. You can almost smell the apoplexy on your breath!

You have no idea re stats or economics and then come up with gibberish like this.

You are claiming the sky is falling in and now are stamping your feet because people are sceptical.

To counter this your mob just keep increasing the size of their lies.

Doesn't take much to see propaganda for what it is.

As for gullible see the Y2K thread were some actually still believe there was a real problem.

Yeah, you're not falling for propaganda., after all those oil industry funded think tanks are warriors for Fair and Balanced truthiness. But those scientists, they are tryng to fool the world!

You know things aren't going your way when even the BBC decides it can no longer keep on the propaganda band wagon. No temperature increase, no consensus.

Dear oh dear, the wheels are falling off.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm

Oh noes, so the noise from the denialist echo chamber has reached the ears of the Beeb, and that means the wheels are falling off?!

Uh, no, go and actually read the article, they have just quoted (or misquoted in the case of Mojib Latif, but that's another story) a couple of scientists who think that the shift in pacific ocean currents might delay th next warming phase, but none of them have denied global warming. And, quite frankly, anybody who actually cares about the issue more than they are about scoring political points, should be hoping that we do get 10 or 20 years respite, buy some time to actually deal with the problem - time that was wasted when the deniers were still in the ascendency and the worlds leaders dithered instead of acting.

 

[bit_pattern]

Speaking of wheels falling off, the US Chamber of Commerce has found itself leeching members at an alarming rate due to their backwards and indefensible stance of climate change

One of the biggest roadblocks to passing global warming legislation is the intense lobbying effort by various industry groups that have adopted extreme right-wing positions on the issue. These organizations include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Petroleum Institute, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). Yet many U.S. businesses that do not hold global-warming denier views have started to revolt against the extremist positions -- which are based more in ideology than business sense. Several major businesses, such as the nation's largest utility company, have left these business alliances altogether, and others are working in coalitions that are fighting to curb climate change.

THE UNRAVELING OF THE CHAMBER: One of the most prominent ideological opponents of efforts to fight global warming is the Chamber of Commerce, which has had a long history of climate change denial. In 1992, the Chamber sponsored a cross-country tour by global warming denier Pat Michaels to "refute the global warming warnings." Most recently, Senior Vice President William Kovacs called for a new "Scopes Monkey Trial" that would put "the science of climate change on trial." Additionally, its president, Tom Donohue, is on the board of serial polluter Union Pacific, which has paid him millions of dollars since 1998. Many businesses, "fed up" with the Chamber's extremist position on the environment have left the organization in recent weeks. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) -- a massive energy provider for northern California -- was the first to leave, citing "irreconcilable differences" with the business federation. In a letter to the Chamber, PG&E chairman Peter Darbee wrote that the Chamber has been involved in "disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these [climate] challenges." Soon after, Public Service Company of New Mexico and Exelon, the nation's largest utility, also left the Chamber, citing similar concerns. Most recently, shoe giant Nike decided to leave its board (but retained its membership in the Chamber), saying it "fundamentally" disagrees with the Chamber's lobbying efforts against climate change legislation. Other business federations, such as ACCCE, have also faced their members' ire. Recently, utility giant Duke Energy quit ACCCE over differences with "influential member companies who will not support passing climate legislation in 2009 or 2010."

You know your cause is in trouble when what should be your natural support base is fleeing in droves!

 

[bit_pattern]

More telling are couple of things I was suspect about that were not contested.

Page 416

You know, I got curious about this and decided to ask around, today I got this response from Eli Rabett. I also emailed Pieter Tans who runs the Mauna Loa observatory for NOAA, so will post his reply when and if I get one.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

It's not a bug it's a featurehttp://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/10/its-not-bug-its-feature-conner-in.html

Someone in the comments asks about what some people, not me, Eli hastens to add, would call a Plimer.

"The raw data from Mauna Loa is 'edited' by an operator who deletes what is considered poor data. Some 82% of the raw data is "edited" leaving just 18% of the raw data measurements for statistical analysis. With such savage editing of raw data, whatever trend one wants can be shown."​

and inquires WTF (sort of the right tude for WUWT).

Eli and Rattus Norvegicus try to be helpful, but after Capital Climate shows that this has become a rich source of denial delight, Ethon, who was getting quite hungry, decided to fly over to the Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO) and check it out. Ethon is quite fond of high aeries even if they are on scenic Pacific Islands and you have to burn a lot of liver to get there, but he does like to check it out before he goes, and lo, the big bird found a nice intro from a high school student who spent time doing science in 1994, Eleanor Foltz, who, some people, not Eli, he hastens to add, would say obviously knows more about the subject than Ian Plimer

It is well known that MLO nighttime downslope winds and daytime upslope winds do not relate well to free tropospheric wind flow in the region of the Mauna Loa massive. The regular downslope winds bring nocturnal upper level air to the observatory site that allows MLO to make background atmospheric composition measurements most days of the year.​

While measurement of the CO2 mixing ratio in the free troposphere is possible almost every day at MLO, one has to monitor the winds and other conditions to be sure that it is being measured. The figure to the left shows the number of days during which measurements could be made for a given number of hours. In any particular hour, not every measurement is accepted for a variety of reasons. This being the government, there is a web page which actually even a bird can find. Now, some people, not me, Eli hastens to add, might believe Ian Plimer's research was slipshod. The NOAA web page carefully explains how measurements are made and how and why readings are accepted or rejected. In addition to the meteorology (wind direction and such) this includes

1. The standard deviation of minute to minute averages should be less than 0.30 ppm within a given hour.
2. The hourly average should differ from the preceding hour by less than 0.25 ppm.
3. In keeping with the requirement that CO2 in background air should be steady, we apply a general “outlier rejection” step, in which we fit a curve to the preliminary daily means for each day calculated from the hours surviving step 1 and 2, and not including times with upslope winds. Aell hourly averages that are further than two standard deviations, calculated for evry day, away from the fitted curve ("outliers") are rejected. This step is iterated until no more rejections occur.

They flag these (and the wind) in the record. Clearly these folk know what they are doing and anyone who reads Charles Keeling's descriptions of his CO2 measurements recognizes that he was obsessed by identifying meteorological and methodological issues. If you pay careful attention you can even measure the CO2 mixing ratio in the middle of Europe, say at Schauinsland. If you don't, you measure nonsense, say in Giessen

Anyone who wants to look at the hourly data since 1974 is welcome. Stuff they toss is flagged.

So, once again Plimer has shown his deep intellectual dishonesty. He takes a perfectly valid fact about how the NOAA collate their data, leaves out a bunch of critical information, then extrapolates from that that the NOAA must be fudging their figures without providing a shred of evidence to support the claim.

Are you starting to see his M.O now, Ripper?

 

[bit_pattern]

Also, you can check the NOAA data for yourself, the last column has the number of days that went into the mean data collection and you can see that on most days less than 10% of data is excluded.

Gee, Plimer lying, who woulda thunk!

 

[bit_pattern]

The Economics of 350 ppm

At least four research groups have modeled global scenarios that lead to 350 ppm CO2. One finds that in a world with unemployed labor and other resources, the stimulus from new climate investments might accelerate economic growth. The other three groups find net annual costs that are generally between 1 percent and 3 percent of world output. These studies are consistent with the Stern Review, the reports by McKinsey, and others, suggesting that achieving 450 ppm would cost around 1% or less of global GDP.
Both of these targets, 350 or 450, become a lot cheaper if oil prices return soon to $150 a barrel. If peak oil drives prices that high in the coming decade, then decarbonizing at a pace to hit 350 could lead to economic gains.​

​

 

[medusala]

So NASA are extremists, Hadley are extremists, the worlds scientists are extremists.

Hansen and the head of the Met are both well known as environmental activitsts and extemists.

That is not opinion, that is fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

In 2008 interviews with ABC News, The Guardian, and in a separate op-ed, Hansen has called for putting fossil fuel company executives, including the CEOs of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal, on trial for "high crimes against humanity and nature",

On June 23, 2009, James Hansen, along with 30 other protesters including actress Daryl Hannah, were arrested on misdemeanor charges of obstructing police and impeding traffic, during a protest against mountaintop removal mining in Raleigh County, West Virginia.[76

 

[medusala]

The other three groups find net annual costs that are generally between 1 percent and 3 percent of world output.

Do you have any idea whatsoever of what global annual gdp being lower by 3% would mean?

Do you care?

Why do you post anything related to economics?

 

[bit_pattern]

Yes, it means that we would grow marginally less than we would have otherwise.

Better than an 5% loss of global GDP, or has high as 20% for individual GDP's in places like India. And that's not even taking into account higher oil prices, which [strike]if[/strike] when oil reaches $150+ a barell then mitigation will actually lead to economic gains.


http://books.google.com.au/books?id...q=global gdp loss from climate change&f=false

Hansen and the head of the Met are both well known as environmental activitsts and extemists.

That is not opinion, that is fact.

No, that's opinion