Callendar, Jaworowski and Beck, who is believable?

Posted: May 13, 2013 by tchannon in Analysis, atmosphere, Carbon cycle, Measurement, volcanos

Image

According to Jaworowski there was cherry picking by Callendar as above and he gives reference.

Image

Mauna Loa data starts 1958 which points to conspiring. It might be interesting to trawl to see Callendar linkage to which mob?

Image

Link to the paper.
or
Link to the paper

Jaworowski ‘s work is carried by Warwick Hughes, here.

I’ve seen words in papers and dataset which are to me admissions of faking up, fits exactly with what Jaworowski writes.

At this point I am lost on what to say, Rog will know why. I’ve been sitting on something for a few years, bit of a bombshell where I still don’t know what to do.

Post by Tim Channon

Comments
  1. Callendar’s “fuel line” has data 4 points below ; and 11 points above. That alone makes me suspicious.

  2. roger says:

    A house of cards built on foundations of shifting sands it seems.
    Not the best laid plan if you expect climate change to deliver freakish bad weather.

  3. grumpydenier says:

    I’ve had this on my site for some time now. Until I really started digging into the history of it, I just assumed the ‘science’ was being overblown for political expediency.

    Now I realise the ‘science’ itself is barely credible. I chuckle when alarmists accuse us rationalists of cherry-picking our facts. It’s obvious most of them argue from a position of ignorance as they have no idea of the foundations of their belief system.

    http://grumpydenier.wordpress.com/resources/more-about-co2/more-about-co2-page-iii/

  4. Kon Dealer says:

    So why select those 4 “above average” points, around 1880 and not the over 20, or so, with similar values over the period 1860-1900?

    I’m sure that there is a “robust” explanation 🙂

  5. Tim it needs to be said and repeated that the 280 or 290 ppm of CO2 base is nonsense.
    Callendar may not have known about W Kreutz’s accurate continuous measurements over 1.5yrs (see my post http://cementafriend.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/co2-in-the-atmosphere/) but surely he would have overlooked them. However, there were other independent measurements in other parts of the world at the same time (one by Misra in India). which show CO2 in the early 1940’s around the same level as at present. The Alarmist have been successful in covering up the true data.
    If you have more information about the fraud of Keeling, Callendar etc please bring to the light of the public. The late John Daly and E-G Beck need to be vindicated.

  6. tchannon says:

    Together with WWF and similar archives… here is the stench of establishment corruption.

    I copy what is a labelled summary. For the full thing you would need to contact UEA to see if anything is actually available but as it stands the documents themselves are withheld, with no reason given. I’ve bolded including of the hearsay admission of conspiracy with Keeling. (as a formal librarian summary it carries weight)

    “”This material is held at University of East Anglia
    Reference Number(s) GB 1187 GB
    Dates of Creation 1930-2003
    Name of Creator G.S. Callendar
    Language of Material English
    Physical Description 8 boxes

    Scope and Content

    The collection contains some 95 notebooks (1936-1964) and documents containing data, charts, notes, readings and formulae concerning temperature and climate as far back as 1751 and in locations across the world; letters, reviews and many candid insights into the state of climate science between 1936 and 1964.

    Box 8 contains the Family Collection. This includes photographs, personal correspondence, reprints, historical reappraisals, biographical material (some relating to Callendar’s father – physics Professor H.L. Callendar); and papers relating to Callendar’s war work, including FIDO (Fog Investigation Dispersal Operation), 1942-1946, and to his time with the Armament Design Establishment, 1950-1956. Also included are letters concerning the administration of the archive collection.

    Administrative / Biographical History

    In the first half of the twentieth century, the carbon dioxide theory of climate change had fallen out of favour with climatologists. Beginning in 1938, Guy Stewart Callendar (1898-1964), a noted steam engineer and amateur meteorologist, revived this theory by arguing that rising global temperatures and increased coal burning were closely linked. Working from his home in West Sussex, England, Callendar collected weather data from frontier stations around the world, formulated a coherent theory of infrared absorption by trace gases, and demonstrated that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, like the temperature, was indeed rising.

    Noting an upward trend in temperatures for the first four decades of the twentieth century, Callendar combined these results with studies of the retreat of glaciers, measurements of rising concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide since pre-industrial times, and information newly available concerning the infrared absorption bands of atmospheric constituents. He concluded that the trend toward higher temperatures was significant, especially north of the forty-fifth parallel; that increased use of fossil fuels had caused a rise of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of about ten percent from nineteenth century levels; and that increased sky radiation from the extra carbon dioxide was linked to the rising temperature trend.

    Although he was an amateur meteorologist, Callendar worked on a truly global scale, compiling a reliable world data set of surface temperatures from earliest times and insisting – long before it became fashionable to do so – that climatology must deal with physics and atmospheric dynamics. Even in the depths of World War II, Callendar remained active in climate research, publishing two papers while working on technical problems (including infrared absorption) with the Ministry of Supply. In 1944 climatologist Gordon Manley noted Callendar’s valuable contributions to the study of climatic change. A decade later, Gilbert Plass and Charles Keeling consulted with Callendar as they began their research programs. Just before the beginning of the International Geophysical Year in 1957, Hans Seuss and Roger Revelle referred to the ‘Callendar effect’ – defined as climatic change brought about by anthropogenic increases in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide, primarily through the processes of combustion.

    Conditions Governing Access

    The digitised collection is open for consultation in the Archives Department by appointment during the Archives advertised opening hours. The paper collection is CLOSED.

    http://archiveshub.ac.uk/search/summary.html?rsid=297792369&startRecord=1&maximumRecords=20&hitposition=5#rightcol

  7. Kon Dealer says:

    As a plant physiologist I have never been convinced by ice core measurements of [CO2] and the Keeling record is just too short to have real significance.
    Here are some interesting papers- none agree with IPCC “Settled Science”:

    Wagner, F., Bohncke, S.J.P., Dilcher, D.L., Kurschner, W.M., van Geel, B. and Visscher, H. 1999. Century-scale shifts in early Holocene atmospheric CO2 concentration. Science 284: 1971-1973.

    The inverse relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and stomatal frequency in tree leaves provides an accurate method for detecting and quantifying century-scale carbon dioxide fluctuations. Stomatal frequency signatures of fossil birch leaves reflect an abrupt carbon dioxide increase at the beginning of the Holocene. A succeeding carbon dioxide decline matches the Preboreal Oscillation, a 150-year cooling pulse that occurred about 300 years after the onset of the Holocene. In contrast to conventional ice core estimates of 270 to 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), the stomatal frequency signal suggests that early Holocene carbon dioxide concentrations were well above 300 ppmv.

    Kouwenberg, L., Wagner, R., Kurschner, W. and Visscher, H. 2005. Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles. Geology 33: 33-36.

    A stomatal frequency record based on buried Tsuga heterophylla needles reveals significant centennial-scale atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millennium. The record includes four CO2 minima of 260–275 ppmv (ca. A.D. 860 and A.D. 1150, and less prominently, ca. A.D. 1600 and 1800). Alternating CO2 maxima of 300–320 ppmv are present at A.D. 1000, A.D. 1300, and ca. A.D. 1700. These CO2 fluctuations parallel global terrestrial air temperature changes, as well as oceanic surface temperature fluctuations in the North Atlantic. The results obtained in this study corroborate the notion of a continuous coupling of the preindustrial atmospheric CO2 regime and climate.

    McElwain, J.C., Mayle, F.E. and Beerling, D.J. 2002. Stomatal evidence for a decline in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the Younger Dryas stadial: a comparison with Antarctic ice core records. Journal of Quaternary Science 17: 21-29.

    The reconstructed CO2 record from Splan Pond mirrors that obtained from Pine Ridge Pond with mean interstadial (GI-1a) CO2 concentrations of 319 ± 5 ppm, which decline abruptly to mean GS-1 concentrations of 234 ± 2 ppm and return to mean early Holocene values of 298 ± 2 ppm at its termination. Late-glacial CO2 records from both Pine Ridge Pond and Splan Pond show three distinctive features that contrast markedly with Antarctic CO2 records from Dome Concordia (Monnin
    et al., 2001). They indicate that: (i) CO2 concentrations were higher than typical interglacial levels (i.e. ca. 280 ppm, Petit et al., 1999) by GI-1; (ii) CO2 concentrations during GS-1 were close to typical full-glacial levels (i.e. 200 ppm, Petit et al.,1999); and (iii) a rapid increase in CO2 from near-glacial to higher than full interglacial levels occurred during the transition from GS-1 into the early Holocene.

    Now this is a real understatement “Our observation that atmospheric CO2 decreased at the onset of GS-1, and that CO2 change may have lagged rather than led GS-1 cooling, have important implications for our understanding of the role of atmospheric CO2 in rapid climatic events.”

  8. Doug Proctor says:

    If you were to do your mathematical magic with the data from 1800 to 1910, you would find a decrease in CO2. Taking the Keeling data to be legitimate, which it is reasonable to say it is, then you would have a decrease and then an increase to today.

    Still, the ice core data, though probably understating CO2 historical levels, due to CO2 proportionality changes during ice development and increasing pressure, shouldn’t be TOO far off, and if it is, it should be proportional year-to-year. Which suggests that the CO2 historical data is not that far off as presented.

    I’m not sure that serious questions about the historical level of CO2 in the atmosphere are legitimate 280 or 300 ppm really doesn’t matter. As a kid in Grade school, I recall 334 ppmv, long before CAGW gave a reason to fudge the data.

    Now, the SOURCE of the CO2 DOES concern me. CO2 emission from the oceans is well known (as is absorption) and follows plankton growth. Several years ago I read of research in the English Channel that showed this (as well as in the Antarctic seas). I have wondered whether the rising temperatures of the oceans and possibly overturning cycles of the oceans were responsible for a portion of the rise of CO2. This would also explain why, with time, it is harder for humans to increase atmospheric CO2 with each ton of CO2 emissions.

    Coming out of the LIA was a global phenomenon. How much CO2 would be in the air right now if that had happened in the absence of humans? The IPCC say the answer is 280, but isn’t that fundamentally incorrect when the IPCC says that CO2 solubility is temp dependent? Isn’t that fundamentally incorrect when the IPCC says that increased exposure of tundra and temps above freezing release CO2?

    The carbon 12/14 ratios are supposed to show that all of this new CO2 is fossil fuel, but what it shows is that it is old, i.e. older than recent-by-solar creation. The glaciers slid across the ground, they did not scour the ground to rock level. Exposed soils/tundra is pre-glacial in age, as is all the exposed Arctic landmass that has risen about 25m in the last 10,000 years (I’ve seen it on Banks Island in the Arctic, around Hudson Bay at Churchill and onshore in NW Newfoundland.) There is a lot of paleo-CO2 being emitted. How much of the current old carbon is human-old and how much is planet-old, I suspect is less settled and less certain than we are told.

  9. Sparks says:

    In the atmosphere CO2 can reach over and above 500ppm, the processed signal of the mole fraction of CO2 almost seems to me like it is being allowed to rise slowly, I’ve also noticed this.

  10. PeterMG says:

    A few thoughts if I may. This subject, CO2 levels in the atmosphere, is the key to debunking AGW but not to understanding short term changes in our weather/ climate. I think CO2 plays a key role over geological time working in conjunction with life, but over time scales of decades and even centuries CO2 levels follow temperature and/or life. Over these short time scales it’s the oceans, the moon and planets, even our position in the milky way are the short term drivers.

    However I don’t believe anyone will get anywhere unless the changes in atmospheric pressures are understood, either that or we agree that fossils grow in the ground with the passing centuries and that the dinosaurs where no bigger than today’s elephants.

    Even CO2 levels of 10,000 ppm cannot explain how animals of 100 tonnes could exist on earth 150 million years ago with an atmospheric pressure of a little over 1 bar. And it is interesting that these monsters had disappeared well before the asteroid hit and Deccan Traps 65 million years ago. If you look at life prior to the dinosaurs we see the earth was in an ice age that lasted many millions of years from about 300m to 240m years before present.

    There is evidence that CO2 levels at the start of this ice age were very low, just as our levels are today. Life was all but wiped out, and at that time animal life was mainly in the sea with only plants on land. But given that most life, even today, “breaths” CO2 what happens to CO2 levels if nothing uses it up? Surely it increases due to volcanic activity?

    Sixty million years with low life levels is a long time, and just perhaps it was this slow build-up of CO2 that raised the temperature to the critical level to start melting the ice back. Perhaps as much as 10 Bars worth so that the Average temperature rose to 6 degrees or more above todays. This kick started plant life which allowed animal forms to exist. The plants were grasses and ferns that could regenerate quickly, and with elevated temperatures and CO2 there would have been an abundance of food and hence the dinosaurs could gorge until they reached their physical limits. At some point between 150 and 100 million years ago these huge animals were on the wane and we see the meat eaters emerge. Was this just and evolutionary reaction to an overabundance of large creatures that in an atmosphere of failing pressure, as all the CO2 was used up, were finding their size a hindrance? When you look at the fossils from 65 million years ago they are all much smaller than those from previous times.

    We had the mass extinction 65 million years ago, something I’m not sure we are even close to understanding, and then there was a change 50 million years ago that saw temperature rise, and since then a slow decline in CO2 levels and down to our 1 bar atmosphere of today.

    Could any of the other gases change? Yes O2 can and does but I ‘m sure oxygen levels are related to CO2 levels and life. N2 is inert and given earths N2 is almost the same as that on Venus, only in proportion to its mass we can rule out N2 being able to modulate the atmospheres pressure.

    I’m not a scientist, just an observer, but I can’t help but feel if some of the thinking could be joined up, without the dogma, we would move forward with our understanding. If anyone thinks I’m bonkers and has some reasoning to go with it I would love to hear it. No mathematics just reasoning and thinking. I’m as interested as anyone in what really drives our climate, but we aren’t going to understand it just looking back a couple of hundred years, or even a couple of thousand years.

  11. Doug Proctor says:

    I’ve seen the business of a high atmospheric pressure in the past discussed before. The idea that the atmosphere can thicken and thin rapidly and suddenly is anathema for many, but certainly would explain features we see on Mars that indicate pressure conditions adequate for signficant water movements in the past. As for Earth ….

    One thing is this, and I don’t have it thought all through:

    Plant stoma controls oxygen, CO2 and moisture in and out. Stomal densities reflect CO2 concentrations, I have read, and they have changed over the millenia, which is taken to reflect changes in CO2. I have not seen suggestions that pressure changes CO2 or other gas absorption rates, but it is certainly true for divers that pressure makes nitrogen dissolve in our blood so that we cannot ascend quickly. Probably increases uptake for all gases, but since N2 is the dominant gas, it is the one that gets blamed for the “bends”. If the pressures were higher, you wouldn’t need as much area for gas exchange to maintain the same life processes per unit weight or volume; stomal densities should be much lower. I haven’t seen that.

    With the principle of increased solubility in mind, at a 10 bar level of atmospheric pressure, all gases would dissolve in blood also more easily than they do now. Blood vessels are easy to see in dinosaur bone – the permeability of marrow is why dinosaur bones disintegrate once the outside, hard and impermeable rock has eroded away. At a higher infusion rate, you wouldn’t need as much blood or marrow for the same level of activity. Small dinosaurs – and from all the Late Cretaceous coprolites I have personally gathered, small outnumbered big – would have had minor blood vessel densities. They don’t.

    As I noted, I haven’t thought this all through. But those are two points to consider.

    We also have to recall that the large animals, the megafauna, were far from rare until humans wandered among them. Not as large as dinosaurs, yes, but far, far bigger than they are now. Within the last 50,000 years all large creatures excepting the marine ones, have shrunk. There are skeletons of bison (“buffalo”) in the lobby of a downtown building in Calgary, Alberta that show a 50% shrinkage from 12,500 years BP to the present. Australia, New Zealand had huge land creatures … until people arrived. So even in the post-glacial, cool Earth of the Recent, size was not as limited as we might think.

    Dinosaurs grew to the limit of weight-bearing of bone material, I believe, and trees are as tall/heavy as structurally able as wood. Creatures need numbers as well as access to adequate food all year round, so we may be seeing a combination of these effects: bigger means safer, generally, but more means higher chance of individual survival and smaller means more for an existing food source. Especially if the food source is variable.

    I see dinosaurs having a large, energized food source that is always available (even if it involves migration), a food source that is essentially beyond consumption due to regrowth rates. So the dinosaurs can stay many but get very big. Predator size is then dictated by prey size, as it is today.

    Thoughts, mostly.

  12. Kon Dealer says:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/14/in-retrospect-we-predicted-global-warming-would-slow/

    Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period1. To explain such a pause, an increase in ocean heat uptake below the superficial ocean layer2, 3 has been proposed to overcompensate for the Earth’s heat storage. Contributions have also been suggested from the deep prolonged solar minimum4, the stratospheric water vapour5, the stratospheric6 and tropospheric aerosols7. However, a robust attribution of this warming slowdown has not been achievable up to now.

    Here we show successful retrospective predictions of this warming slowdown up to 5 years ahead…

    “retrospective predictions”!!!

    I guess what these bozos mean is that hindsight is 20/20.

    And they expect us to take climate psience seriously!

  13. oldbrew says:

    As Notrickszone points out today:

    ‘There’s no correlation between CO2 and temperature. Of the last 130 years, CO2 has risen 100% of the time, but temperatures have risen only during 45 of those years (1920-45 and 1978-98). That’s a very lousy correlation.’

    http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/14/new-york-times-conceding-low-sensitivity-now-talking-about-co2-quadrupling-to-get-catastrophe-scenarios/

  14. michael hart says:

    I can see some merits in the argument that much of the data in Beck’s survey is too sporadic to be trustworthy, and at lower altitudes CO2 is not well-mixed. But this gives few grounds for supporting Callendar’s preferences.
    Some of the the lower absolute values at a single location are very short and with comparatively large intra-annual ranges. This applies to Keeling’s assessment of Muntz’s nine-month record as being the best from the 19th century. In ~1881 it is in the region of ~315ppm. Like Mauna Loa, it is taken at altitude (2900m, and “on windy days”), yet it has an annual range of ~30ppm.
    But Haesselbarth, closer to the modern annual range of ~10ppm, has data with the mean around ~330ppm in 1874-76. Both of the aforementioned records are very short.

    Callendar notes that Letts and Blake standardized their reagents from time to time, yet they also have an annual range over 40ppm in 1897.

    Krogh is noted for fewer measurements and a greater attention to accuracy of the absolute value, yet in the early 20th century he reports several values that are higher than those from ML fifty years later. The highest is over 500ppm.

    After plotting each single-location/author series individually, to my eye some of the best looking wet-chemical data is from Fonselius-Plönninge just before and after the Mauna Loa record began. Over a four year period the seasonal variations are clearly visible. Most notably, the overall trend of the data was DOWN. Some data from some authors is not as well ordered as it should be. I’m not yet sure if this is due to my Phil Jones-style Open-Office skills.

    Without access to the detailed methodology of each analyst I find it difficult to say much more, but I see no a-priori reason why chemists would necessarily arrive at values that are significantly higher than modern instrumental values. (Compounds such as Potassium carbonate were used as standardization reagents when I last did wet-chemical titrations a good while ago.)

    Which data was Callendar aware of, and chose not to admit? I don’t know. But I don’t buy all his exclusion/criteria criteria as stated. They seem like cherry picking. I’m not even sure how well he adhered to his criteria. By my standards, some of the examples don’t seem to follow these principles.

    Thanks for posting this, Tim. It has also reminded me of something I haven’t spent enough time thinking about: Higher concentrations of CO2 are often observed at night. Keeling reasonably attributed this to plant respiration, after adjusting for water. (But how?). Callendar apparently regards biology and biochemistry as grounds for excluding data. To my way of thinking this closes the ring of circular logic: Much CO2 data is excluded, and then the remaining data are described as all that matters and say that they show the proposed hypothesis is correct.

    I believe tower-measurements are an attempt to exclude ground effects, but how representative are they of this phenomena? The in-situ towers are few (9), and NOAA don’t list data for any outside of the contiguous 48 United States. When discussing “urban” locations anthropogenic emissions are commonly mentioned as a reason to exclude CO2 data. Most human emissions occur over a very small percentage of the earth’s surface area, but the same CO2 doesn’t get mentioned as having any local or regional effect on thermometers.

  15. Bebben says:

    Tim, what you write here is extremely interesting. Have you thought about contacting Tom Segalstad, co-author of Jaworwski on a couple of papers? Or using the “FOIA method”?

  16. […] a start, a cursory check of early records reveal that CO2 may well have hit up to 500ppm back in the 1800s. More importantly, however, the […]