OT: EV Charging Stations Stripped of Copper Cables

Thanks for the timely reminder and of course you're dead right. I'll not respond to any more of his rude and ill-informed messages.

Not exactly. It's a summary of the data known as of 1900 or so about the atmosphere. The original article was in German, but the Royal Society published the same article in English.

I'd venture that you have no idea who Savante Arrhenius is.

Joe Gwinn

His name does crop up in an awful lot of chemistry textbooks so he clearly knew his stuff. But as I say, there's no way of verifying his authorship of this article without sight of the original.

Well, he does seem to know his stuff:

.

Copies in old journals are available, but only in very large libraries, and it's unlikely that anyone will let you touch those old and fragile copies.

But images are definitely available.

Your position is that only people who have spent two years reading

How does this position differ from the Climate Change folk who point to the 20,000 CC articles published per year and say that one must read them all to have an informed opinion?

Joe Gwinn

But gold - in that context - is still a medium of exchange, so you aren't talking about barter. Making all currency exchanges electronic and thus permanently on record is a bureaucrat's dream, but with crooks like Putin having lots of political power it isn't going to happen.

Name one. Lying about the science under-pinning anthropogeic global warming isn't any kind of better thing - it's pure trolling.

I don't hate anybody. I do despise Cursitor Doom, but I wouldn't go to the trouble of hating him - being a gullible sucker is a character defect, but it would be foolish to hate somebody because they were born defective, or were warped by their up-bringing.

Curistor Doom's idea of politeness is to advance his deluded ideas as if they were not only correct, but obviously correct, and reject informed criticism as work of of one his imaginary conspiracy theories.

Actually, it isn't. You need to know enough about the science to realise that the atmospheric CO2 levels measured by the Victorian's were distorted by the limitations of their experimental techniques.

Charles Keeling used an industrial CO2 meter (based on near-infra red absorbtion) to do enough measurements to realise that the results he got in built-up areas were all over the shop (because people were burning fossil carbon for fuel in the vicinity, as they had been when the Victorian numbers were collected), and realised that he had to put his observatory on the top of Manua Loa to get consistent, useful and reliable data.

You need to understand the science, rather than just read the books, and you haven't master that.

Somebody as dim and ill-informed as Cursitor Doom can think that. They aren't correct.

Ice core data.

Mann's "hockey stick curve" was the first attempt at that. The fossil carbon extraction industry didn't like his results and made vigorous attempts to discredit them.

The slightly paradoxical consequence was that everybody in the business found other proxies for historical temperature and there are now about two dozen published studies - some going back a lot further - which all confirm the original assertion.

Ice core data provides one of these proxies

Neither Cursitor Doom nor John Larkin is all that well-informed.

You do like to assert that, despite the fact that you couldn't reason your way out of paper-bag.

You do like your fatuous delusions. Frequent repetition doesn't make them any less fatuous.

If you went to the right university library you could find a copy of the Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science Series 5, Volume 41, April

Making the effort to actually get to the library is an investment - not one you seem to have made.

Physical text books aren't the original papers, they tend to be based on them, but they do leave out stuff. And there's a certain amount of selective omission and simplification involved in writing a text-book to direct the student reader along the path that the author wants them to follow. Old text books can be downright misleading.

Which is probably accessible in a university library hear you. More likely the original version in German.

Nobody says that. Climate science is split into sub-specialities, and only people within the speciality read all the published papers relevant to that specialty.

Significant papers do get more widely read, and cited, and review papers tend to pull the significant papers together, and spell out what they all mean.

Leading figures in their field really do know what is going on, and my wife was famous for shocking newly published authors in her field by knowing about their papers and how they fitted into the field.

Cursitor Doom is at the opposite end of the spectrum.

If you're going to wade through academic papers on 'climate change' you're going to need a background in the relevant sciences in order to make sense of them. OTOH, spending an hour at most over some books in a library to compare two sets of figures requires zero scientific background - and a bare minimum of effort.

Cite?

It's an on-line source, but - unlike you - it cites the published references from which it's data was extracted.

Etheridge, D.M., L.P. Steele, R.L. Langenfelds, R.J. Francey, J.-M. Barnola, and V.I. Morgan. 1996. Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn. Journal of Geophysical Research 101:4115-4128.

The Journal of Geophysical Research isn't a textbook you can buy, but it's going to be accessible in a university library near you.

That's Anthony Watts' demented theory. Measuring the average surface temperature of the earth has gotten a little more sophisticated in recent years.

Not so much large libraries as specialised libraries, and the paper from back then wasn't noticably fragile the last time I looked at it (which was quite a while ago).

They don't.The field has long since split into sub-specialties, and only the specialists feel the need to read everything published in their sub-specialty. There are papers that get more widely read, but not all that many of them. Sturgeons Law say that 90% of everything is rubbish, and while published scientific paper rarely rubbish, most of them are of very specialised interest.

But the problem is that you need to know what the numbers mean, and that does require the scientific background that you clearly lack.

You really are an utter imbecile.

CD? Or BS?

We have the heat on now. A bit of AGW would make my wife happy.

CD. He shares your ignorant notions about anthropogenic global warming, so you may not have noticed.

We've already got about 1.5C of anthropogenic global warming, and the side-effects are starting to get obvious. She may enjoy the extra warmth, but there are other consequences.