Quote:
Originally Posted by flogger
PPM 1942 = 420
PPM 2006 = 380
Nuff said.
No wonder that the IPCC chooses to ignore CO 2 readings pre 1957 in favour of much less accurate ice core readings post 1957. Error factor 1957 3% using chemical analysis post 1957 using far less accurate ice core data 8% go figure ?
|
I think this is what you are basing your figures from:
I can't believe Beck looked at that graph and didn't spot the big glowing hint that the pre-1957 data is inaccurate. Compare it with the smooth and steady data since 1957.
The mistake Beck makes is to assume accuracy of measurement method is the only thing that affects data accuracy. It wasn't the inaccuracy of the measurement method that made much of the pre-1957 data bad, but where the measurements were being made from in light of what was trying to be measured.
The point is to get a measurement of the well-mixed atmospheric co2 level. The pre-1957 measurements using chemical methods might have been 3% accurate but a lot of them were affected by surface contamination. When co2 measurements are taken in a busy city those measurements might be 3% accurate, but they are measuring within 3% accuracy the co2 level at the surface of that busy city, not the well-mixed co2 level throughout the bulk of the atmosphere.
Keeling went to great lengths to get co2 measuring stations in remote areas away from surface contamination and all of a sudden - as if by coincidence - you can see that since that time co2 levels stopped fluctuating all over the place and instead being quite steady year to year.
So what's more likely?
1) That the pre-1957 data is "all over the place" and unreliable because of contamination which Keeling managed to solve.
Or
2) co2 fluctuated all over the place pre-1957 and then all of a sudden changed behavior entirely and remained very steady. And by coincidence it did this as soon as Keeling started his monitoring program. As if co2 knew it was being watched.
Additionally there's no known way that co2 can fluctuate as much as it does on the pre-1957 part of Beck's graph. No known way for co2 sinks and sources to swing that much from year to year.
Once again though I see the IPCC is made the scapegoat for what is actually a skeptic's (in this case Beck's) mistake. Almost every time the IPCC "ignore" something it's for a good reason.
Linear Mode
