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.
--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via  
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Cursitor Doom
Loading thread data ...

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

The Hawaii data goes back to 1960 and is generally considered pretty good

formatting link

Reply to
newshound

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

The method the author describes, reacting CO2 with barium hydroxide solution, has been debunked as unsuitable, by way of too much error, for the measurement of the small concentrations of air found in the atmosphere. page 155 here

formatting link

"Errors in the determination of CO2 by many methods reported in the literature are so large that they exceed its normal concentration in the atmosphere [2, 3]. The majority of methods are suitable only for the determination of increased concentrations of CO2 in air, e.g., for the estimation of the degree of gas contamination of rooms in plant workshops, the concentration of CO2 in vegetable stores, in fires, etc. "

formatting link

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

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

You mean there is actual evidence for climate change?

Wow!

--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink... 
..I'd spend it on drink. 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

One tree ring. Not tree rings.

Climate alarmisism is based on one bristle cone pine in the Yamal peninsula.

ROPFLMAO

--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink... 
..I'd spend it on drink. 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Finally some reasonable data.

--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink... 
..I'd spend it on drink. 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

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

--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via  
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other  
 Click to see the full signature
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.

--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via  
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Cursitor Doom

The Wikipedia link gives ~300 in ~1900.

Reply to
newshound

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.

--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via  
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Cursitor Doom

From the link you posted I read the following:-

"The determination of carbon dioxide in air was always an important practical problem. It became par- ticularly important in recent decades because of the studies of the greenhouse effect."

All you are doing is proving my point, though! Of course 'they' are going to attempt to debunk and undermine historical sources which quote the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere where they contradict the 'official narrative' that levels are skyrocketing due to the activities of man. The only way to get unbiased information on the subject is to consult the physical, hard-copy literature of 100+ years ago, because everything subsequent to that has to be regarded as potentially compromised for political reasons.

--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via  
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Cursitor Doom

newshound wrote

On cause and effect: 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

newshound wrote

Anybody can edit wikipedia.

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

Do you think this is faked?

formatting link

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

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

i'm not even going to discuss with climate change deniers. It's like talking to the Jehovah's Witnesseson the doorstep - a complete waste of time and breath. TW

Reply to
TimW

ElectronDepot 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.