I quite like this, from his Abstract: "The historic chemical data reveal that changes in CO2 track changes in temperature, and therefore climate in contrast to the simple, monotonically increasing CO2 trend depicted in the post-1990 literature on climate-change." OTOH Beck has been criticised by even the most stalwart of Climate Change sceptics, here
formatting link
scroll down to
What about the Beck data, doesn?t it contradict the MLO data?
It's so easy to get lost in and bogged down by complex statistics such as these, especially when they require some background in climateology to understand in the first place. My beef with climate science is far more fundamental: I was able to discover for myself - as anyone esle could - that the level of atmospheric CO2 has remained essentially the same at just under 400ppm throughout the entire history of the 20th Century. This completely blows apart all the alarmist carbon-BS spouted by the AGW brigade and it arose from a chance discovery I made in an old chemistry book from
1898 or thereabouts. I'll post more details if anyone here is genuinely interested in debunking climate alarmism for themselves - but not for the entertainment of the wilfully ignorant on this group who parade their stupidity here as a badge of honour (THEY know who they are).
Well again that is fairly debatable. The Mauna Loa figures show it going from 320 to 420 ppm over 60 years
formatting link
and it would be much harder to fake those than say global temperature
The killer for me is that global temperature - even the massively 'adjusted' record of the climate alarmists - simply doesn't match that curve.
Its been up and down massively with only a small overall rise in the same time period, and plenty of periods when it fell (1960s) or stayed broadly constant(noughties).
That says to me that the statement that 'the vast majority of post war warming is directly attributable to human emitted CO?' *cannot* be true, there must at least be other significant factors, and those factors once they are admitted, are just as likely to be positive as negative, factors.
That puts CO? as simply a second order effect, which is consistent with the physics, without the added alarmist 'amplification'.
This completely
Old chemistry books from 1898 when laboratories were in the middle of coal burning cities are not especially reliable sources of *global* data.
That is why CO? is monitored up a high mountain in the middle of an ocean, and not at the side of the M25...
I am happy to concur that AGW is bunk, but not on the basis of one old text book. All the evidence - the greening of the Sahel and so in is that CO? is rising nicely worldwide. None of the evidence is that this is in any way a Bad Thing?.
That's not my contention at all. The old book made a claim about the volumetric composition of the atmosphere was not in accordance with what I was seeing from online and MSM sources. I thought I'd probably be wasting my time investigating further but I'm just one of those people with more time than sense. So I set about acquiring a great deal more old books. You can buy scanned old books on DVDs very cheaply and I acquired 150+ titles that way for peanuts. I also set about collecting hard-copy, too, though. I bought a ton more chemistry books off Ebay, plus all the top encyclopaedias: Britannica, Americana, Universal, Chambers, British, Everymans and so on. And I bought multiple editions of same from different time periods covering the whole of the 20th Century. For example, I have 3 different editions of Britannica alone - the last of which was a 2009 DVD edition. So after a modicum of expenditure and a *lot* of time I was able to compile accurate, accredited articles on the composition of the atmosphere going back over almost 120 years. Not one of those multiple sources, NOT ONE, departed from the ~400ppm range for CO2. It simply hasn't budged since Victoria's time and completely and utterly refutes the claims made by the AGW brigade. That was one hell of an eye-opener I can tell you... I wonder what else we're being lied to about?
I may have missed that post or simply not have had the time to address the questions you raised. And if you think I'm going to waste my time posting evidence here where a load of obnoxious trolls will attempt to rubbish it, you don't know me very well at all. I have far better things to do with my time. I'm happy to tell people how to go about finding the truth for themselves, though. And that's about as much as I can be bothered to do for them.
Without posting the evidence your posts are without substance.
If, on the other hand actually posted real evidence, the fact you believe it would be easily rubbished doesn't bode well.
I still don't see any evidence. Perhaps you could put copies of these relevant pages of encyclopedias on a photo or other similar sharing website?
If you think the composition of carbon in the ice cores I referenced is wide of the mark, do feel free to provide alternative evidence these are wrong.
You don't really seem to understand how knowledge and science progress.
Basically they do this by replacing existing knowledge with better explanations.
If you went to University yourself or have kids at Uni, you'll know this already. As in science subjects at least they always need to have the latest editions of the course textbooks.
So that instead of buying all these out-of-date chemistry books from eBay and all of these encyclopaedias, including 3 different versions of Encyclopaedia Britannica, you could have saved yourself a ton of money and hours of effort by simply checking out the Encyclopaedia Britannica site on the Web. For free. Where it gives the latest up-to-date information on the topic.
So that
QUOTE:
The natural background level of carbon dioxide varies on timescales of millions of years because of slow changes in outgassing through volcanic activity. For example, roughly 100 million years ago, during the Cretaceous Period (145 million to 66 million years ago), CO2 concentrations appear to have been several times higher than they are today (perhaps close to 2,000 ppm). Over the past 700,000 years, CO2 concentrations have varied over a far smaller range (between roughly 180 and 300 ppm) in association with the same Earth orbital effects linked to the coming and going of the Pleistocene ice ages (see below Natural influences on climate).
By the early 21st century, CO2 levels had reached 384 ppm, which is approximately
37 percent above the natural background level of roughly 280 ppm that existed at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Atmospheric CO2 levels continued to increase, and by 2018 they had reached 410 ppm. Such levels are believed to be the highest in at least 800,000 years according to ice coremeasurements and may be the highest in at least 5 million years according to other lines of evidence.
formatting link
UNQUOTE:
From which I think you can see that you've been barking up the wrong tree all along. Whether levels were ever in the ~400ppm range isn't really the issue.
As is explained above, by the early 21st century, CO2 levels had reached
384 ppm BUT by 2018 they had reached 410 ppm
It's this rate of increase, which occurred long after any of these books you've been accumulating were printed, which is so unprecedented.
Along with the fact that QUOTE: Such levels are believed to be the highest in at least 800,000 years according to ice coremeasurements and may be the highest in at least 5 million years according to other lines of evidence.UNQUOTE
This is what all the concern is about. An unprecedented rate of increase to levels not seen in at least 800,000 and possibly 5 million years.
I could not care less whether you or anyone else believes what I've said or not. No matter how credible the evidence is, there are always going to be people here on this group who are too thick to understand it and will disparage it simply because it's CD who posted it. Don't believe any of it? FINE BY ME! :-D
Because you knew you could save hours of effort by simply checking out the Encyclopaedia Britannica site on the web, where it gives the latest up-to-date information on the topic for free, you deliberately went out and bought OLD hard-copy books, containing out-of-date information.
Which simply doesn't make sense.
My apologies. I actually thought you were a sincere if somewhat misguided person, rather than what you clearly are. A person with no other motive than to waste everybody's time. And quite possibly a liar as well. Your explanation as to why you bought all these books is so ludicrous, as to raise serious questions as to whether they actually exist at all.
In the Dangerous Unprecedented Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Global Heating Emergency Alarm system, only the future is certain. The past is constantly being revised.
While I support neither Doom nor Beck, the latter gives plenty of references in his paper in my original link. The opening sentences in Beck's conclusion read "During the late 20th century, the hypothesis that the ongoing rise of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a result of fossil fuel burning became the dominant paradigm. To establish this paradigm, and increasingly since then, historical measurements indicating fluctuating CO2 levels between 300 and more than 400 ppmv have been neglected."
You may dismiss Doom, but Beck's paper deserves considered opinion. After all, it actually got published, which is a feat in itself in these biased times.
Posting hard evidence would gain me nothing. It's not worth the bother. If you choose not to follow my suggestion and find out the truth *for yourself* then that's no concern of mine. There are plenty of people here for whom no degree of accreditation is sufficient, so I go to all that trouble and they *still* refuse to believe it. I'm not going down that path.
. Disparage away then. I'd far rather I get disparaged without going to any pointless and time-consuming effort first.
It's based on an old joke from Soviet times, with 'Soviet Union' replaced by all the descriptors I could find that have been used by the alarmists, the latest addition being 'Dangerous'.
However, it's rather sad to see historical data being manipulated - as so clearly illustrated by Climategate, or in the case of the PP, totally trashed - simply because it's old data. But then again, that's what historical records are, and they stand in their own right.
I was the one making the point. Your argument has entered the silly mode where you say I have missed my own point.
That's rubbish, some of us work on evidence. Those who believe in AGW irrespective of evidence will also provide no evidence of its existence.
By not posting evidence of your own you come across as equally blinkered to the alternative view.
You made the points, they only become valid with evidence. I don't refuse to believe anything and keep an open mind. But if you repeatedly refuse to provide evidence it's as good as saying there isn't any.
Quite, I will disparage any claim the author cannot substantiate.
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.