One of the things that just about no-one bothers contest is that CO2 is rising from anthropogenic contributions. There are good reasons for this; CO2 is well measured since Mauna Loa; it tracks (scaled by 50% for absoption) the known human sources… and so on. However, its a wide net out there and some people will challenge anything, so we have High CO2 in the 1940′s atmosphere, contrary to IPCC science. Tim Lambert and Jim Easter took this apart before; as far as can be told, the recent post (see fig 1 of the Beck thingy) is just the same mistakes all over again.

Comments

  1. #1 coby
    2006/10/03

    It is pretty remarkable that this argument still comes up so much. My take is here:
    http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/co2-rise-is-natural.html

  2. #2 Peter K. Anderson
    2006/10/03

    It IS that ‘Climate Change’ is REAL, whilst the LIE is in the platforming attempt to overlay opinion of an unnatural ‘greenhouse cause’. Narrow ‘doom & woe’ discourse attempting to lobby ‘Idolisation of Opinion’ being ‘protected’ by CENSORSHIP only shows its WEAKNESSES. Time NOW for the ‘greenhouse wagoners’ to notice what IS Natural, rather than demand we all ‘believe’ the “Greenhouse Idols”.

    The previous 400 years saw Human Population grow by ~5 Billion. The SPRAWL of this population was deferred however a persistent but DECREASING delay in development of needed technologies and materials. HOWEVER the next 100 years is expected to see ANOTHER ~5 Billion added to Human Population and there will NOT be any ‘deferments’ of sprawl related effect due to a ‘technology lag’. There will NOT be then any deferment of observed IMPACT of such sprawl on the Environment in either consideration of Median Surface Temperature Rises OR alterations to O2 production & transport. “Humanity is building itself into a “Dishcleaner that will be held on Rinse”.

    This new ‘Human Habitat’ will also exist within the expected Natural rise in relative sea levels, those of the Primary Crest position seen already to be ~30 meters + (vertically) on ‘presently observed levels’. There will be many more rapidly ‘spun up’ storms in the ‘near future’ that have no relationship to any ‘greenhouse supposition’ and will not see ‘remediation’ of ‘increased WORK potentials’ from ANY ‘greenhouse related effect’. It is not that ANY amount of idolism of ‘greenhouse opinion’ will halt the return of the Climate Tide and those attempting to promote ‘political rhetoric’ are required to either show that there IS an UNNATURAL problem in effect, as Climate is changing in a Natural and expected progression still.

    Pollution, ‘greenhouse labelled’ or otherwise, is not wanted, but such pollution is NOT creating UNNATURAL climate alterations. It is certainly ‘very plausible’ for expectations of the overall Climate Oscillation to rise back into the Primary Crest behavior from NOW, this being the ‘position’ Climate held for the ~200,000,000 years prior to this now ~3 Million year long ‘Trough’ period. Humanity does indeed need to adapt, & to move Habitat and become less reliant on fixed infrastructure.

    Thus, with Trees being ‘abandoned’ Millions of years ago, Caves abandoned Thousands of years ago, what next should be the question after the “Suburbia” of the Present, it is coming time to move again. The STORMS are telling the TRUE story, not the platformed ‘greenhouse doom rhetoric and opinion idolism’.

    There isn’t a REAL reason to NOT openly discuss Climate, certainly the ‘greenhouse platform’ efforts to Censor discussion makes false the ‘greenhouse climate position’, such behavior immediately invalidating the ‘position’ of ‘Coby’ anyway. CO2 CANNOT produce any warming effect as outlined by ‘greenhouse theory’ and the ‘quantity’ of CO2 is of NO relevance to ‘Climate’ within any consideration of ‘greenhouse theory’, it is OBVIOUS and readily realised, hence the effort to produce CENSORSHIP.

    Your’s,
    Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod™
    E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
    (*)- http://hartlod.blogspot.com/
    (**)- http://hartlodsgallery.blogspot.com/

  3. #3 Eli Rabett
    2006/10/04

    The mistake here is a different one. Basically Beck didn’t RTFR or he could not find it. If you are going to measure CO2 mixing ratios, Europe is not a good place to start and that was pretty clear after 1960, when Keeling blew the Swedes away.

    Sorry for the double post, but the link was foul

  4. #4 Wacki
    2006/10/04

    Unbelievable. It amazes me that these people still have careers outside of political lobbying. They are either an incompetent scientist or an incompetent liar. Any way you cut it they are incompetent.

  5. #5 jre
    2006/10/04

    Thanks for the link, William. Please permit me to link also to the sub-post dealing specifically with Fonselius’ summary of historical CO2 measurement, and Jaworowski’s breathtakingly wacky misinterpretation of it. It is basically the same argument advanced by Warwick Hughes (who even cite Jaworowski): data are data, and any exclusion of outliers is an indication of bias. Why and how CO2 rose and fell by 100 ppmv in a single year, then settled down as soon as we changed measurement methods, is left as an exercise for the student.

  6. #6 hank
    2006/10/04

    Re notorious outliers, a cartoon:

    http://www.nearingzero.net/screen_res/nz021.jpg