Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleTed
Most people don’t know that thousands of direct measures of atmospheric CO2 were made beginning in 1812. Scientists took the readings with calibrated instruments and precise measurements as the work of Ernst-Georg Beck has thoroughly documented. Guy Stewart Callendar was an earlier visitor to these records. He rejected most of the records including 69% of the 19th century records and only selected certain records that established the pre-industrial level as 280 ppm. Here is a plot of the records with those Callendar selections circled.
Elimination of data is also done with the Mauna Loa and other atmospheric readings, which can vary up to 600 ppm in the course of a day. Beck explains how Charles Keeling established the Mauna Loa readings by using the lowest readings of the afternoon. He ignored natural sources, a practice that continues. Beck presumes Keeling decided to avoid these low level natural sources by establishing the station at 4000 meters (m) up the volcano. As Beck notes “Mauna Loa does not represent the typical atmospheric CO2 on different global locations but is typical only for this volcano at a maritime location in about 4000 m altitude at that latitude.” (Beck, 2008, “50 Years of Continuous Measurement of CO2 on Mauna Loa” Energy and Environment, Vol 19, No.7.)
Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today. How and why we are told otherwise?
Junk in, junk out. And, we're to base changing the whole world based upon some simpleton computer program?
If Socrates was around today he'd be astonished at how little logical pursuit had advanced.
|
Is the same guy that claims he has a PhD in climatology when he doesn't have one? Is he the same man that claims that the climate change theory is based entirely on computer models? Sorry, but I have a little problem taking his word for it based on that. I'll stick with the data on hand.
This guy works like typical deniers. Ignore mountains of data. Concentrate on one detail in one study. Try to find a flaw in it. Extrapolate that this means that the entire theory is false. That's really lazy and really not critically thinking on the subject.
I read the article you provided. There are several errors in it. We can speak about them at length if you'd like (i.e. his stance on stomata data shows a complete ignorance of what it means or what stomata do in plants). If you honestly think that temperature data is the only evidence supporting the theory, you have a hell of a lot more to read on the subject. I would start with isotope data if you really wanted to educate yourself on the current research.