OT: Ping Cursitor Doom

[RJH]

Well that's a variation on the theme. We're all too thick to understand the evidence you won't reveal. OK.

[Martin Brown]

Even climate sceptics think he is a deranged crank published in a journal that is dedicated to trashing the planet for fun and profit.

[Martin Brown]

It is entirely possible that someone measured a fairly high laboratory value for CO2 back in the days when we used Bunsen burners for lab heating and coal fires were commonplace in cities. However, it doesn't alter the fact that you can obtain air samples today for any period of time you like within reason from ice core bubbles in various glaciers.

They back up the Keeling curve. They do not show the same biassed results are the rather poor wet chemistry techniques of old.

[Chris Hogg]

Whether a 'deranged crank' as you put it, I've no idea, but he doesn't get much support. There is correspondence about his paper here

and here

[Fredxx]

What doesn't make sense if you have all this material but more fearful of posting it rather than looking silly in not posting it.

Calling someone a troll because you can't post evidence looks dumb.

Then don't waste your time making claims you can't substantiate.

[Fredxx]

And the most recent, and considered the most accurate, evidence says CO2 levels at the beginning of the 20th Century were sub 300ppmv.

[Cursitor Doom]

Yeah, whatever man.

[Cursitor Doom]

yeah, whatever.

[Cursitor Doom]

For God's sake educate yourself, man.

[Cursitor Doom]

Disparage away, then. I have set out in this thread how others can find out the truth for themselves. There will be those who take the trouble to look into it and equally, those who can't be bothered and expect to be spoon-fed *everything* and I'm not wasting my time on the latter. Are we clear now?

[Cursitor Doom]

Whatever, man.

[Martin Brown]

He also conveniently ignores the isotope ratio data which shows that the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has come from fossil fuels.

It got published in a dodgy journal known for climate change denial. Samples of old air are available from trapped bubbles in glaciers.

The main systematic error is in early wet chemistry measurements.

The pandemic may actually demonstrate that when industry and air travel grinds to a standstill the trend on CO2 rising is slowed a bit.

You can see the inflections for the bad 1990's recession and also around

1963 the others are less clear and the curve continues to get steeper. I think we will see a similar recession to the 90's in the next few years.

The other corroborating evidence is that from 1990 onwards Keeling's son has measured the tiny decrease in atmospheric oxygen levels using a much more difficult technique from the experimental point of view.

[Tim Streater]

You're not actually worried about that, are you? More CO2 leads to more plants which leads to more oxygen. As John Gribbin points out in is discussion of Lovelock/Gaia. See his book, "Deep Simplicity".

[The Natural Philosopher]

The problem is my dear doomster, that multiple citing of erroneous data is the norm. I was, because I am a tad geeky, perusing Wikipedia for information on WWII fighters, to see how their power to weight compared with the model planes I was designing.

In the process of which I had to convert BHP to KW and vice versa. Imagine to my surprise when I did that the kW appeared to be a typo with two digits transposed. I corrected the entry on wiki,. but the original author changed it back citing some reference or other.

In short, the fact that the kilowatts didn't match the brake horse power was no match for someone else's 'authoritative' publication.

My guess is that only one person ever measured CO? concentration back in

1880 and everyone else assumed he got it right, and copied it.

And that was 'peak coal' when cities were smog bound.

And people didn't open windows. In a submarine values up to 30,000ppm -

100 times alleged background - are common.

My point is that no one was in the slightest bit interested in the concentration of global atmospheric CO? back in the 19th century and a laboratory test in a coal burning city with windows closed unless one knew the conditions is *probably less accurate than a core test of greenland ice*.

The evidence from there, and from the greening of marginal savannah in Africa is that CO?IS increasing.

The evidence also exists that its doing f*ck all to temperature, but that's another matter.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Ok the number of *humans* represents an 'unprecedented rate of increase to levels not seen in at least 800,000 and possibly 5 million years.'

As does the number of bicycles, the number of vegans, the number or transgender activists,the number of climate activists, the number of aircraft contrails, the number of fake entries in wikipedia.

In short humanity is, and always has been, in uncharted territory.

Why single out carbon dioxide?

[Spike]

But that's the whole point, isn't it. 'Old' data hasn't been readjusted to fit the current dogma. Just look at how much of the 'adjusting' was revealed by Climategate. Even the Central England Temperature Record, going back to ?1660, looks to have been 'adjusted' - which may have given rise to this: "For a period early in the 21st century there were two versions of the series: the "official" version maintained by the Hadley Centre in Exeter, and a version that was maintained by the late Philip Eden which he argued was more consistent with the series as originally compiled by Manley"

[The Natural Philosopher]

To be fair to cursitor, his thesis is, whether you believe it or not, that the information is out of date for now, but was not out of date when published, and was accurate

You have raised a straw man here. I mean your whole thesis that CO2 hasn't been this high for 500,000 years is invalidated because that is

500,000 years out of date information!

No, whatever ground you criticise the doom on, that one wont fly

That is like Michael Mann claiming the little ice age or medieval warm period didn't happen on the bases of one bristle-cone pine tree, when the documentary evidence is that they bloody well did.

I believe Cursitor's books to be wrong, but not that they don't exist, or say what he claims they do.

To one decimal place I am sure that CO2 at 400ppm is what it was and has been for years in any industrial country, measured in a city at ground level in a laboratory by human beings exhaling the stuff.

[The Natural Philosopher]

LOL!

[The Natural Philosopher]

The problem is that that is a one dimensional simplistic figure. In reality Co2 is distributed around the world peaking at higher levels where there are things like decaying forests and so on and is deeply cyclic over the years seasons.

Sure we can get concentration from Greenland ice cores,but what does that mean that Greenland wasn't near any industrial activity? Or volcanoes? Or that perhaps it was?

What we do know is that bits of the Sahel are greener now than in the last 50 years which is suggestive. What we also know is that the sahara wasn't always a desert either, so was CO2 higher back them? Or just less goats?

In short its all very complex.

[Tim Streater]

Besides which 800,000 years is nothing at all in geological terms.