RTFR Pops

So Poptech Andrew has popped up at Rabett Run.  Amongst the blather are some discussion of Pop's careful selection of "septical [TM Stoat]" literature.  Glenn Tamblyn went over there and found

So...

I go to poptech's site to have a look at his papers. Where to start? General is the first category so I might as well start there. And the first paper listed is ....(drum roll)

Has the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere Changed Significantly Since the Beginning of the Twentieth Century? (PDF) (Monthly Weather Review, Volume 83, Issue 10, pp. 225-231, 1955)- Giles Slocum

Slocum FWIW was a government bureaucrat, in the Weather Service.  His conclusion, stated in the abstract was:

In this paper, the physical knowledge of atmospheric CO2 is examined and the available nineteenth and twentieth century observations of the atmospheric CO2 concentration are summarized to ascertain the extent to which they corroborate claims that the amount of atmospheric CO2 has increased since the nineteenth century. In the light of the uncertainty of both physical knowledge and of statistical analysis, it is concluded that the question of a trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration remains an open subject."

Glenn continued

So in 1955 Giles Slocum concluded that not enough was known about CO2levels. Which was exactly true, THEN!

That's why Keeling began his studies just a few years later.

So the 1st paper on poptech's list can best be described as OBSOLETE AND OUTDATED.

Pops tried the old two step

Poor Glenn and his SS "crusher crew" cannot read that the papers are listed chronologically and desperately cherry picks. Those papers were listed to show that skepticism is nothing new. I moved all the pre-1970 papers to the historical section at the bottom of the list.

Oh I do enjoy educating and embarrassing the computer illiterates from Skeptical Science. 

Glenn notices

I go back to have another look, and lo and behold, the Slocum paper is no longer in the General list. It suddenly vanished. After some searching I found it had moved to Historical, way down the list. All in just 15 minutes.

Andrew, YOU ARE PRICELESS! 

but Eli, as is his wont went and read the paper, conveniently available from NOAA.  Why their interest? Well it turns out that while Slocum was skeptical of many of Callendar's choices of records to exclude he was no one's fool.  If bunnies go and read the paper the conclusion in the conclusion, reasonable at the time, was

It may be hoped that the collection of standardized measurements of CO2 can be made a part of the 1957-58 International Geophysical Year program. Once a dependable set of observational data has been assembled, the evidence of the old observations can perhaps be reevaluated. If such new reevaluation proves impracticable, even then a reliable set of new worldwide observations can serve as a basis for comparison in future years.

In summary, the data, at present available, are inadequate as they now stand to prove or disprove a statistically significant trend in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.  If and when an upward trend has been demonstrated, and  its cause ascertained, it will then be valid to base physical explanations of atmospheric events on the assumption that CO2 is increasing. Meanwhile, Callendar’s interesting extrapolations (through the 22d century) of the effects of burning up of the world’s fuel, stimulate the interest of the speculatively minded.

This paper provided strong motivation within the Weather Bureau for funding the Keeling measurements on Mauna Loa as part of the 1957-58 IGU.  Moreover, Slocum was exactly right, the Keeling measurements quickly lead to to re-evaluation of the older records, indicating that Callendar's selection was the correct one and pointing to reasons why many of the older measurements were problematic.  The Slocum paper also has an important listing of early measurements.   RFAOTFR Pops. 

Eli might be taking bets on Poptech deep sixing this one.