The Climate Change Hoax

For the most part, everything you say in this post is demonstrably false to one degree or another. CO2 levels spiked near the 500ppm range in the early 19th century for a few decades. (I can revisit that data again if necessary) The key, 'Go To' scientist used by the IPCC to establish the so-called pre-industrial baseline figure of 280ppm showed this spike in his original data set. He removed the peaks when he re-presented the SAME DATA to the 1st IPCC conference a few years later in order to please his new masters. Callendar freely admitted to "throwing out data that exceeded his expectations by more than 10%". Thus was born the myth of a stable atmospheric CO2 level less than 300ppm. Troy obviously believes it

But there's even more corroborating evidence than the ice and dirt core data. It turns out that there were scientists that took an interest in atmospheric chemistry as early as 200 years ago! They worked out how to measure the absolute concentrations of various gases, and began to take samples at regular intervals and kept very good records of the results over the years. These records indeed show the early to mid 19th century spike of 450-500ppm! Since they were very good early scientists, they carefully archived their test methods. This is a very important point, because when we use those same test methods using the materials available to them at the time to make a test of our present atmosphere, we get good measurements which are in strong agreement with test results using modern methods. As accurate as modern tests? Of course not, but certainly as accurate or more so than ice and dirt cores, and they show that these early measurements are a useful data archive, both for direst comparison, and to help calibrate ice and dirt cores and various proxies. Too bad there is no interest from the AGW alarm camp to make such a use of this data. Gee, I wonder why?

So the notion of a stable 280 ppm CO2 atmosphere for eons turns out to be yet another steaming pile of fresh **** from team AGW.

Eat that **** up, suckers!


Next, you don't have to go back millions of years to get to 'Baked Alaska'; that apparently happened only 10-20, 000 years ago with essentially the same set of biota present today.

Why you would not want more of the earth to be usable is beyond my understanding; the great northern and southern arctic deserts cannot be farmed and are uninhabitable. If we were to return to the climate of one of these warm periods (used to be called "Climate Optimum Epochs" before the AGW hysteria came along) much of these areas would become usable land.

The AGW alarmists believe that if this happens, then the tropics would overheat, desserts would expand, drought would become the normal weather pattern, and etc., etc.. They come to this conclusion because of their basic misunderstanding of the role of clouds and water vapor in the atmosphere's greenhouse budget. If the sum of feedbacks for water vapor really is strongly positive as they assert, then an overheated planet would accompany such a return to warmer temperatures.

Of course, once again, this assertion is not borne out in the observed data (More re-posting coming up I guess) If the sum of the feedbacks for water vapor is not only negative, but even strongly negative as the observed data suggests, then a warmer planetary atmosphere will be wetter, not drier, have a narrower range of temperatures rather than wider, and be less stormy and generally more stable.

Note all these things are exactly opposite to what is predicted by the AGW camp and is all due to their misunderstanding of clouds and water vapor, perhaps their greatest feat of willful, agenda-driven ignorance, even more than their willful misunderstanding of the carbon cycle.

Jimbo

 

CO2 levels spiked near the 500ppm range in the early 19th century for decades?!?

Yeah, I think maybe you should "revisit" that data.

 

It is absurd to think otherwise. Humans on planet earth will become extinct. That is a FACT.

The argument is over when that might happen.

Out of 4.5 billion years, primates have been around how long? Of the time of the primates, humans have been around for how long? And I'm to be concerned about a single species exactly why?

What makes our species so special?

You want a strange post, try this:

If we evolved to fit an abnormal climate, then the logical conclusion is that when the climate returns to normalcy humans will be gone.

Is that hard to accept?

 

No, we didn't evolve to fit an 'abnormal' climate. Why do you think some other era or age should be classified as normal, as opposed to the one we're in? If we go back far enough, there was no life at all for a lot longer than there's been life of any kind. Does that mean life is abnormal, and has no "right" to exist?

Your argument is on the same level as saying, 'we're all going to die eventually anyway, so why are we trying to cure cancer?'

 

Here ya go!



These are the same authors that gave up the "280ppm pre-industrial baseline" using the SAME data! This is how it looked before they removed the peaks for re-publication in the 1st IPCC report . The peaks show up in all the ice cores and authors routinely throw out these "anomalous" data points! No bias here


And by actual measurements by chemical methods:
Note the smoothing of the graph to ~430ppm, but also note the peak of ~490ppm, which corresponds to the ~500ppm peak in the Byrd, Neftel, et al ice cores.

You should avoid reading Beck's webpages, Troy as you would not want your spotless mind to become 'polluted'

Jimbo

 

wont global warming cure cancer?

 

"Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence."

Dr Richard Lindzen,

Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Member of the National Academy of Sciences,
American Geophysical Union,
Consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
Member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate

 

No but it might make your teeth whiter, their whitest ever!



Jimbo

 

Instead of just swallowing Ernst Beck's claims and conclusions wholesale, I suggest you read this fairly detailed rebuttal of them.

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html

Here's a sample, to get you started:

{I]For many of the historical measurements, there is little description of methods used, sampling, sample handling, calibration, etc... Thus while a certain method may have been sufficiently accurate, the sampling/handling and/or lack of calibration,... may be the origin of large changes in performance and/or huge changes in data obtained. That is also what a comment by peterd on a blog [7] says, a person who also looked at historical data, but beyond what Ernst Beck investigated.
From that source:


Caldwell performed five series of tests comparing the Pettenkofer method with known values of CO2 and with the Letts and Blake modification of the Pettenkofer, which was itself of a high accuracy when compared with known CO2 volumes. His summaries show actual CO2 concentration to vary from 0.66 to 0.89 of the amount measured by the Pettenkofer method.”
In other words, the Pettenkofer values- and, by implication, ;many of those reported by Beck as supporting his >400 ppm values in the 1930s-1940s- may have been over-estimated by 50%!


Other methods like the micro-Schollander method had such a bad performance (+/- 150 ppmv!) that even when measured at a good "background" place like Barrow (currently one of the "baseline" stations), the results have no meaning at all. The micro-Schollander method was intended for measurements of exhaled air, which contains several thousands of ppmv CO2. The equipment was calibrated on ambient air. If the ambient air was between 200-500 ppmv, then the equipment was deemed OK! That is no problem for measuring CO2 in exhaled air, but it is a big problem if you want to know CO2 at levels of around 300 ppmv...[/I]

There are lots of pretty graphs there; you should like it.

 

All data has uncertainties, Troy, The uncertainties of these chemical analysis are by no means the largest among the data sets used in this debate. If you are going to visit the uncertanities in the chemical analysis, then let's re-visit the HUGE problems with the ice cores. Fair enough? After that, we can revisit the enormous errors , biases and uncertainties in the tree ring proxies, you know the ones, that suggest that the Medeival Warm Period was not global and that there was no Little Ice Age and that 20th century warming is anomalous.

And if the data Beck compiles is so untrustworthy, isn't it odd that is agrees *perfectly* with the data that YOU ACCEPT, the data from Byrd, Neftel, et al, the very same data that the IPCC used to establish the "280ppm pre-industrial baseline" ?

Jimbo

 

"wont global warming cure cancer?" Actually, it will but only if it causes you to go out-of-doors more.
Washington, Oct. 19 -- A study has found that increased exposure to sunlight, which helps increase levels of vitamin D in the body, may halve the risk of advanced breast cancer.
Esther John, Ph.D., Northern California Cancer Centre, and co-researchers Gary Schwartz, Ph.D., Comprehensive Cancer Centre at Wake Forest University School of Medicine and Sue Ingles, Ph.D., University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine found that women with high sun exposure had half the risk of developing advanced breast ...

In fact, one will find that ALL cancer rates other than melanoma are reduced with sunshine.

 

You didn't even go read it, did you? What I'm hearing is that uncertain data completely disproves anything the other side says....but if it happens to support your prior beliefs, suddenly the tune changes to "all data has uncertainties, Troy."

 

Hello....have been following this for a while .

It seems you may have forgotten your own advice here troy....

 

That's why I just added the signature, Elmo. Seems I need the reminder....

 

Troy, he meant to insult you.