OT: Climate Change Bullshit

According to the NASA site, atmospheric C02 is currently at 400ppm (0.04)
and rising exponentially (and some)...
formatting link

However, according to 'A Compendium of Chemistry' by Arnold & Mandel
(1914)...
"The amount of carbon dioxide in the air amounts on average to 0.04
volume percent [400ppm], but may rise to one or two percent in rooms
occupied by many persons or by the burning of many gas flames; experience
has shown that it is not advisable to have more than 0.1 volume percent
in a room for habitation. The purity of the air can be determined by
estimating the amount of carbon dioxide contained therein."
So despite NASA's rather alarming looking graph, the amount of
atmospheric CO2 is the same today as it was over 100 years ago.
It's only by referring to very old books written before the climate
change agenda was drawn up that we can see the 'man-made global warming'
meme is based on nothing but LIES.
If anyone I haven't plonked wants a scan of the original page from the
1914 volume I'm happy to supply it via email.
Reply to
Cursitor Doom
That figure of 400 does not give the margin of error, so it implies a figure of between 350 and 450.
And that assumes the source is accurate.
So, as a refutation of the evidence for climate change, it scores 0 out of 10.
Reply to
GB
You'd actually be better challenging temperature data. Much is made of satellite data, but that of course only dates from the early 1960's when things were cold and damp. There's evidence that around the 1900s there was as much free water around the north pole in summer as there is now.
And of course normal meteorological "records began" in the 18th century, i.e. during the little ice age.
Reply to
newshound
what does "the air" mean in the context of a chemistry text from 1914? Which air where. Sounds like the context is indoor air quality; gas interior lighting was still very common in 1914 and electric lighting didn't really start going mainstream in the first world until after WW1.
IMO ice cores and tree rings probably keep a more accurate record of historical CO2 concentrations than mutton-chopped compendium authors.
Reply to
bitrex
I'm afraid you are simply wrong my little doomed dimwit.
I used to repair and calibrate gas monitors 25 years ago and 350ppm was the norm.
I still use gas monitors today and guess what, we are indeed up near 400ppm
Stick to the Beano, it's a little less demanding.
AB

Reply to
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp
Two Irishmen go looking for a job. After reading the vacancies list on the gatepost of a prospective employer, one says to the other: "That's a shame, Paddy. They're looking for tree-fellers and there's only the two of us." :-D
Reply to
Cursitor Doom
I can go back as far as 1847 if need be (the oldest environmental chemistry book in my collection). I'll bet it's still 0.04% back then, too - before a single car was even produced.
Reply to
Cursitor Doom
But this is the very *core* of the problem! All online sources are potentially compromised by 'environmentalists' with their own agenda to pursue. If you want *unbiased* and accurate figures you need to consult original hard-copy reference books published before the 'man-made global warming' meme originated.
Reply to
Cursitor Doom
newshound wrote
Is the CO2 increase due to temperature increase, or the temperature increase due to the CO2?
I think the first makes a good chance, as the curve is linear, and orbital changes predict a temperature increase.
formatting link
from that site you can find how climate change likely really works.
Reply to
<698839253X6D445TD
That data gives an increase of 2 ppm/a, so to reach the NASA alarmist figures of 1500 ppm takes 550 years.
Everyone seems to ignore the biofeedback effects, i.e. the increased biomass production with higher CO2.
The annual +/- 3 ppm variation is also interesting. It is measured in the middle of a nutrient poor deep ocean (thermocline) on a small island, Is the variation due to vegetation on the islands only ? Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be long time measurements on continents.
Reply to
upsidedown
Yes, I've noticed! Look up any subject which there's likely a political agenda behind and you'll find it's locked and can't be edited or even questioned by anyone.
Reply to
Cursitor Doom
Do you think this is faked?
formatting link

The technology for measuring gas concentrations is a lot better than it was 100 years ago.
Reply to
John Larkin

Site Timeline Threads

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.