In 1900, Arvid Hgbom calculated the amount of CO2 emitted by industrial sources and, surprisingly, found that man was adding CO2 to the atmosphere at roughly the same rate as volcanoes. No one thought much of it as, at that rate, it would take centuries for the amount of CO2 to increase significantly. However, after a protracted heat wave during the 1930′s, Guy Callendar re-examined previous temperature and CO2 measurements and found not only that the Earth was getting warmer, but also that atmospheric CO2 concentrations were increasing rapidly. Callendar’s work was mostly ignored, but a few scientists began monitoring the concentration of CO2 more closely. Their results were sporadic but, by 1958, Charles Keeling had established accurate procedures for measuring atmospheric CO2. His lab was eventually moved to the Mauna Loa observatory, far away from most CO2 sources. His graph showing how CO2 varies with time, now called the Keeling curve, proved to be an important piece of evidence.I've bolded the significant portions. Same paragraph admits that volcanoes are a significant source of atmospheric CO2, then says moving a lab to an active volcano moved it away from "most CO2 sources."
Look folks, this is what we call "cognitive dissonance." I've calculated out in this blog before that anthropogenic CO2 only accounts for about a quarter of the increase in CO2 that we are currently seeing (PLEASE check my math on that one) and no one really knows where the rest is coming from. But sticking the observatory on top of an active CO2 emitter and saying it is "far away from most CO2 sources" is outright chicanery.
9 comments:
Chicanery, thats it exactly.These are the numbers i researched out.CO2 makes up 383ppm of the atmosphere. Of that humans are responsible for less than 5%. roughly 19ppm. if we could somehow cut our output in half,(stoneage anyone?) we would only be controlling less than 10ppm.And power grubbers & fools think we can control the temp. of the earth with 10/millionths of the atomosphere. See how that works with microsoft stock! Of course were suppose to ignore the gaint, blazing nuclear furnance over our heads that manages to change the temp. 20 to 30 degrees every 24 hours?.....God help us....mthead
Nothing to see here.
This from the same f*cktards who started shrieking about a 0.5C increase per century while failing to note that 3 centuries of newly paved suburbia surrounding their thermometer sites MIGHT have had some teensy effect on their data.
Anthropogenic global warming is a cult, and is therefore best dealt with the way one would approach astrology and Scientology.
Those backing it are anti-Western communists using their tree-hugging useful idiots for cover while attempting to hamstring free market economies.
-Aesop
213CERN did some interesting research regarding the role of solar energy in determining the climatic conditions on Earth. It did not receive much attention from the Lamestream Media, and they didn't push it, probably because such would not bring in any grant money. Long story short, the solar cycles have a lot more to do with climate change than anthropogenic CO2. Do a websearch for CERN climate change for the information. _revjen45
_revjen45,
I'm quite familiar with the CERN cosmic ray cloud studies. Thank you though.
I'll just point you in this direction:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10333304
... and have you note how the official "doesent think it is worth trying".
Because, yeah, doing nothing waiting for a handout is SO much better than doing SOMETHING.
Anonymous,
Trying "something" is a poor idea. The retreating glacier on Mount Kilimanjaro have been linked to deforestation, 230 glaciers in the Western Himalayas are actually growing. Until we can point out to WHY that is, simply doing "something" is at the very best a crap shoot.
But we've known that glaciers have been shrinking since 1850, when the LIA ended. What did man do to cause the LIA? Nothing.
You're right, Mauna Loa is a volcano. That fact did not escape the attention of the scientists, either:
[quote]
How do scientists know that Mauna Loa's volcanic emissions don't affect the carbon dioxide data collected there?
By Dr. Steve Ryan, NOAA March 8, 2010
Mauna Loa is indeed an active volcano; it last erupted in 1950, 1975, and 1984. Between eruptions, it emits variable amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) from fissures at the summit. The observatory is located on the northern slope of the mountain, 4 miles away from and 2,600 feet lower than the summit, which is 13,675 feet above sea level.
Most of the time, the observatory experiences “baseline” conditions and measures clean air which has been over the Pacific Ocean for days or weeks. We know this because the CO2 analyzer usually gives a very steady reading which varies by less than 3/10 of a part per million (ppm) from hour to hour. These are the conditions we use to calculate the monthly averages that go into the famous 50-year graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
We only detect volcanic CO2 from the Mauna Loa summit late at night at times when the regional winds are light and southerly. Under these conditions, a temperature inversion forms above the ground, and the volcanic emissions are trapped near the surface and travel down our side of the mountain slope. When the volcanic emissions arrive at the observatory, the CO2 analyzer readings increase by several parts per million, and the measured amounts become highly variable for periods of several minutes to a few hours. In the last decade, this has occurred on about 15% of nights between midnight and 6 a.m.
These periods of elevated and variable CO2 levels are so different from the typical measurements that is easy to remove them from the final data set using a simple mathematical “filter.”
NOAA’s Earth Science Research Laboratory program also measures CO2 in weekly flask samples taken at over 60 remote locations around the world. The Mauna Loa Observatory baseline CO2 concentrations agree very well with flask measurements taken at a similar latitude around the world, which confirms that the volcanic CO2 does not affect our final results. These measurements all show significant increases in CO2 over the last few years. (You can find this information up through the end of 2007 on our website at www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/.)
[end quote]
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-co2-record/
Thanks Ed, your input was really helpful in proving that even CO2 monitoring stations on volcanoes have a baseline.
Also note that they do throw out data as a general course of business, and only have confirmation data going back to 2007. In 5 years we are looking at an increase (based on published trends) of less than 4 ppm, which at this point is just "noise in the data."
Whenever I encounter this AGW nonsense, I recall the saga of the "Glacier Girl" a P38 abandoned on Greenland in 1942. Later found covered by 260 ft! of compacted snow/ice, in 1990's - covering a span of 50 years when CO2 was said to be increasing, and supposedly same for temperatures.
Oh well, I note that Ed above is interested in " Good government, good education, good books, public service, science, hiking, Scouting, action to fight global warming, the accurate teaching of evolution and other science, butterfly gardening"
I would have imagined that phrenology, flat earth society & eugenics would be competing interests.
Post a Comment