Did anyone read the sunday times today ,it shows how easily facts about the
glaciers in the himalayas can be misconstrued and like the proverbial
chinese whispers ,be
contorted without anyone really checking back to the scource to see if it
stands up to rigorous peer review.

While on the subject of source data ,worldwide CO2 measuring equipment over
the years must have changed ,
did anyone calibrate the old equipment against the new.
Just to add to the conspiracy theory , I bet the new equipment gave
generally higher ,more sensitive and more accurate readings than the old ,so
you of course will see a spike in the more recent levels
It would be great to get hold of some old equipment and compare the new to
it.
What do you other cleaver newsgroup guys think.?
WEATHERWONDERMAN (leeds)

weatherwonderman wrote:
Did anyone read the sunday times today ,it shows how easily facts about the
glaciers in the himalayas can be misconstrued and like the proverbial
chinese whispers ,be
contorted without anyone really checking back to the scource to see if it
stands up to rigorous peer review.

While on the subject of source data ,worldwide CO2 measuring equipment over
the years must have changed ,
did anyone calibrate the old equipment against the new.
Just to add to the conspiracy theory , I bet the new equipment gave
generally higher ,more sensitive and more accurate readings than the old ,so
you of course will see a spike in the more recent levels
It would be great to get hold of some old equipment and compare the new to
it.
What do you other cleaver newsgroup guys think.?
WEATHERWONDERMAN (leeds)

You are obviously expecting some 'cutting edge' remarks.

At least you did not issue David Christainsen's imperative command
"discuss fully".

I do not know why you would think that more sensitive/accurate readings
be higher?

I seem to recall that in my 1960's school days inspired and expired air
CO2 levels were quoted at 0.4% and 4%. If Dr Keeling's figures are
correct then we have not yet reached that 1960's level. Either the
biologists or the meteorologists are telling porkies. Since this is a
weather group inhabited by the latter with far greater knowledge than I,
a mere chemist, I am going to swiftly duck below the parapet again.


--
Philip Adams
W. Norfolk

On 18 Jan, 05:14, Philip Adams wrote:
weatherwonderman wrote:
Did anyone read the sunday times today ,it shows how easily facts about the
glaciers in the himalayas can be misconstrued and like the proverbial
chinese whispers ,be
contorted without anyone really checking back to the scource to see if it
stands up to rigorous peer review.

While on the subject of source data ,worldwide CO2 measuring equipment over
the years must have changed ,
did anyone calibrate the old equipment against the new.
Just to add to the conspiracy theory , I bet the new equipment gave
generally higher ,more sensitive and more accurate readings than the old ,so
you of course will see a spike in the more recent levels
It would be great to get hold of some old equipment and compare the new to
it.
What do you other cleaver newsgroup guys think.?
WEATHERWONDERMAN *(leeds)

You are obviously expecting some 'cutting edge' remarks.

At least you did not issue David Christainsen's imperative command
"discuss fully".

I do not know why you would think that more sensitive/accurate readings
be higher?

I seem to recall that in my 1960's school days inspired and expired air
CO2 levels were quoted at 0.4% and 4%. If Dr Keeling's figures are
correct then we have not yet reached that 1960's level. Either the
biologists or the meteorologists are telling porkies. Since this is a
weather group inhabited by the latter with far greater knowledge than I,
* a mere chemist, I am going to swiftly duck below the parapet again.

--
Philip Adams
W. Norfolk- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

More porkies from that nice (rich) Dr. Pachauri, and his corrupt
IPCC. All in all, they no longer look very convincing, do they? (Not
that they ever did, mind...)
House of cards, and all that.

Hide the decline.

CK

On Jan 18, 8:30*am, Natsman wrote:
On 18 Jan, 05:14, Philip Adams wrote:





weatherwonderman wrote:
Did anyone read the sunday times today ,it shows how easily facts about the
glaciers in the himalayas can be misconstrued and like the proverbial
chinese whispers ,be
contorted without anyone really checking back to the scource to see if it
stands up to rigorous peer review.

While on the subject of source data ,worldwide CO2 measuring equipment over
the years must have changed ,
did anyone calibrate the old equipment against the new.
Just to add to the conspiracy theory , I bet the new equipment gave
generally higher ,more sensitive and more accurate readings than the old ,so
you of course will see a spike in the more recent levels
It would be great to get hold of some old equipment and compare the new to
it.
What do you other cleaver newsgroup guys think.?
WEATHERWONDERMAN *(leeds)

You are obviously expecting some 'cutting edge' remarks.

At least you did not issue David Christainsen's imperative command
"discuss fully".

I do not know why you would think that more sensitive/accurate readings
be higher?

I seem to recall that in my 1960's school days inspired and expired air
CO2 levels were quoted at 0.4% and 4%. If Dr Keeling's figures are
correct then we have not yet reached that 1960's level. Either the
biologists or the meteorologists are telling porkies. Since this is a
weather group inhabited by the latter with far greater knowledge than I,
* a mere chemist, I am going to swiftly duck below the parapet again.

--
Philip Adams
W. Norfolk- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

More porkies from that nice (rich) Dr. Pachauri, and his corrupt
IPCC. *All in all, they no longer look very convincing, do they? (Not
that they ever did, mind...)
House of cards, and all that.

Hide the decline.

CK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You missed out on the cutting edge remarks here, wonderman! 8))

On Jan 18, 4:14*am, Philip Adams wrote:
weatherwonderman wrote:
Did anyone read the sunday times today ,it shows how easily facts about the
glaciers in the himalayas can be misconstrued and like the proverbial
chinese whispers ,be
contorted without anyone really checking back to the scource to see if it
stands up to rigorous peer review.

While on the subject of source data ,worldwide CO2 measuring equipment over
the years must have changed ,
did anyone calibrate the old equipment against the new.
Just to add to the conspiracy theory , I bet the new equipment gave
generally higher ,more sensitive and more accurate readings than the old ,so
you of course will see a spike in the more recent levels
It would be great to get hold of some old equipment and compare the new to
it.
What do you other cleaver newsgroup guys think.?
WEATHERWONDERMAN *(leeds)

You are obviously expecting some 'cutting edge' remarks.

At least you did not issue David Christainsen's imperative command
"discuss fully".

I do not know why you would think that more sensitive/accurate readings
be higher?

I seem to recall that in my 1960's school days inspired and expired air
CO2 levels were quoted at 0.4% and 4%. If Dr Keeling's figures are
correct then we have not yet reached that 1960's level. Either the
biologists or the meteorologists are telling porkies. Since this is a
weather group inhabited by the latter with far greater knowledge than I,
* a mere chemist, I am going to swiftly duck below the parapet again.

--
Philip Adams
W. Norfolk- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is quoted at (approx) 0.4% in textbooks and classrooms today,
Philip. 0.4% does appear to have been an incorrect rounding if you
were taught that in the 1960s, judging by the Mauna Loa annual means.
The figure would be reasonable to use in classrooms today.

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/tren...nnmean_mlo.txt

Do you really not think that there would have been no calibration
between changing CO2 detection equipment wonderman? These scientists
eh. tsk tsk. Can't trust them to do anything. Fancy not bothering to
check the equipment they are using? Don't believe anything science
tells you, I say! *))

On Jan 18, 4:14*am, Philip Adams wrote:
weatherwonderman wrote:
Did anyone read the sunday times today ,it shows how easily facts about the
glaciers in the himalayas can be misconstrued and like the proverbial
chinese whispers ,be
contorted without anyone really checking back to the scource to see if it
stands up to rigorous peer review.

While on the subject of source data ,worldwide CO2 measuring equipment over
the years must have changed ,
did anyone calibrate the old equipment against the new.
Just to add to the conspiracy theory , I bet the new equipment gave
generally higher ,more sensitive and more accurate readings than the old ,so
you of course will see a spike in the more recent levels
It would be great to get hold of some old equipment and compare the new to
it.
What do you other cleaver newsgroup guys think.?
WEATHERWONDERMAN *(leeds)

You are obviously expecting some 'cutting edge' remarks.

At least you did not issue David Christainsen's imperative command
"discuss fully".

I do not know why you would think that more sensitive/accurate readings
be higher?

I seem to recall that in my 1960's school days inspired and expired air
CO2 levels were quoted at 0.4% and 4%. If Dr Keeling's figures are
correct then we have not yet reached that 1960's level. Either the
biologists or the meteorologists are telling porkies. Since this is a
weather group inhabited by the latter with far greater knowledge than I,
* a mere chemist, I am going to swiftly duck below the parapet again.

--
Philip Adams
W. Norfolk

Well that just shows that when more accurate measurements were made
the CO2 levels were lower not higher!

weatherwonderman wrote:
Did anyone read the sunday times today ,it shows how easily facts about the
glaciers in the himalayas can be misconstrued and like the proverbial
chinese whispers ,be
contorted without anyone really checking back to the scource to see if it
stands up to rigorous peer review.

No I didn't see that article, but I did notice the sister daily paper's
article on the Himalayas and the effects of Chinas smoke stack
industries putting soot on the glaciers (in combination with AGW).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6907919.ece

While on the subject of source data ,worldwide CO2 measuring equipment over
the years must have changed ,
did anyone calibrate the old equipment against the new.

How dumb do you think these guys are? The labs do inter comparisons and
tests using flasks of sampled air and reference materials.

Keelings basic technique for CO2 measurement hasn't changed all that
much but the error bars have become narrower as instrumentation has
improved. Scripps has put most of their data online:

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/program_h...e_lessons.html

Ronald Raygun had several goes at removing funding from Keelings long
term CO2 work because the evidence it produced was inconvenient and
conflicted with the Republicans trash the environment policies.

Ironically climate sceptic President Dubya had to give Keeling the US
National Science Medal in 2002 for his lifetimes work.

And it isn't just the concentration of atmospheric CO2 that is changing
- the isotope ratios are shifting to match the signature of the fossil
fuel CO2 we are burning at an increasing rate.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_...pic_ratio.html

These days the methods are available relatively cheaply for anyone who
wants to do it for a few thousand pounds. The uniqueness of the Keeling
data is that he was the first to do it and it now covers many decades
(and several key locations).

Just to add to the conspiracy theory , I bet the new equipment gave
generally higher ,more sensitive and more accurate readings than the old ,so
you of course will see a spike in the more recent levels

They give the same values with slightly tighter error bars. Measuring
CO2 was pretty routine and well inside the instrumental capabilities
even when he started. The early kit was actually rather good with better
than 3 sig fig precision and accuracy. Depending on the monitoring
station you also see the annual CO2 change from seasonal photosynthesis
which gives a pretty good sanity check on their data.

Keeling's son developed a commercially available paramagnetic oxygen
monitor to a standard of reproducibility where it can measure the
corresponding decrease in oxygen concentration resulting from the
combustion process which requires more than 5 significant figures.

http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/

This shows that 43% of the CO2 we emit ends up in the oceans and is
causing measurable changes in acidity which will damage sensitive
calcium fixing organisms like corals.

It would be great to get hold of some old equipment and compare the new to
it.
What do you other cleaver newsgroup guys think.?

You are paranoid.

Regards,
Martin Brown

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
weatherwonderman wrote:
Did anyone read the sunday times today ,it shows how easily facts about
the glaciers in the himalayas can be misconstrued and like the proverbial
chinese whispers ,be
contorted without anyone really checking back to the scource to see if it
stands up to rigorous peer review.

No I didn't see that article, but I did notice the sister daily paper's
article on the Himalayas and the effects of Chinas smoke stack industries
putting soot on the glaciers (in combination with AGW).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6907919.ece

While on the subject of source data ,worldwide CO2 measuring equipment
over the years must have changed ,
did anyone calibrate the old equipment against the new.

How dumb do you think these guys are? The labs do inter comparisons and
tests using flasks of sampled air and reference materials.

Keelings basic technique for CO2 measurement hasn't changed all that much
but the error bars have become narrower as instrumentation has improved.
Scripps has put most of their data online:

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/program_h...e_lessons.html

Ronald Raygun had several goes at removing funding from Keelings long term
CO2 work because the evidence it produced was inconvenient and conflicted
with the Republicans trash the environment policies.

Ironically climate sceptic President Dubya had to give Keeling the US
National Science Medal in 2002 for his lifetimes work.

And it isn't just the concentration of atmospheric CO2 that is changing -
the isotope ratios are shifting to match the signature of the fossil fuel
CO2 we are burning at an increasing rate.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_...pic_ratio.html

These days the methods are available relatively cheaply for anyone who
wants to do it for a few thousand pounds. The uniqueness of the Keeling
data is that he was the first to do it and it now covers many decades (and
several key locations).

Just to add to the conspiracy theory , I bet the new equipment gave
generally higher ,more sensitive and more accurate readings than the old
,so you of course will see a spike in the more recent levels

They give the same values with slightly tighter error bars. Measuring CO2
was pretty routine and well inside the instrumental capabilities even when
he started. The early kit was actually rather good with better than 3 sig
fig precision and accuracy. Depending on the monitoring station you also
see the annual CO2 change from seasonal photosynthesis which gives a
pretty good sanity check on their data.

Keeling's son developed a commercially available paramagnetic oxygen
monitor to a standard of reproducibility where it can measure the
corresponding decrease in oxygen concentration resulting from the
combustion process which requires more than 5 significant figures.

http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/

This shows that 43% of the CO2 we emit ends up in the oceans and is
causing measurable changes in acidity which will damage sensitive calcium
fixing organisms like corals.

It would be great to get hold of some old equipment and compare the new
to it.
What do you other cleaver newsgroup guys think.?

You are paranoid.

Regards,
Martin Brown


Martin: your Ronald Raygun remark immediatley finds you out as a liberal
BBC/Guardian totting left winger and in that role I would like you in as
many words as you choose; to enlighten us all as to the wonderful
environmental record of the old Soviet Union and China

"Natsman" wrote in message
...
On 18 Jan, 05:14, Philip Adams wrote:
weatherwonderman wrote:
Did anyone read the sunday times today ,it shows how easily facts about
the
glaciers in the himalayas can be misconstrued and like the proverbial
chinese whispers ,be
contorted without anyone really checking back to the scource to see if
it
stands up to rigorous peer review.

While on the subject of source data ,worldwide CO2 measuring equipment
over
the years must have changed ,
did anyone calibrate the old equipment against the new.
Just to add to the conspiracy theory , I bet the new equipment gave
generally higher ,more sensitive and more accurate readings than the old
,so
you of course will see a spike in the more recent levels
It would be great to get hold of some old equipment and compare the new
to
it.
What do you other cleaver newsgroup guys think.?
WEATHERWONDERMAN (leeds)

You are obviously expecting some 'cutting edge' remarks.

At least you did not issue David Christainsen's imperative command
"discuss fully".

I do not know why you would think that more sensitive/accurate readings
be higher?

I seem to recall that in my 1960's school days inspired and expired air
CO2 levels were quoted at 0.4% and 4%. If Dr Keeling's figures are
correct then we have not yet reached that 1960's level. Either the
biologists or the meteorologists are telling porkies. Since this is a
weather group inhabited by the latter with far greater knowledge than I,
a mere chemist, I am going to swiftly duck below the parapet again.

--
Philip Adams
W. Norfolk- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

More porkies from that nice (rich) Dr. Pachauri, and his corrupt
IPCC. All in all, they no longer look very convincing, do they? (Not
that they ever did, mind...)
House of cards, and all that.

Hide the decline.

CK



As usual why let the facts remove to wheels from a just bandwagon once its
got rolling.

On Jan 18, 2:32*am, "weatherwonderman" wrote:

WEATHERWONDERMAN *(leeds)

Let's just make things clear shall we?

You are not Weatherlawyer. You just wish to usurp the name.