I clicked on "quote", but canceled because what`s the sense holding a mirror in front of people who can`t or won`t see. It`s always the same response, "most (pseudo) scientists agree"...or "You Neanderthals blah blah blah"...forget about trying to discuss science, the "climatologists" believe they the own "science" like the fags own downtown at gay parades.
These -most whatever they are, agree that - arguments were the same with acid rain, the phantom pesticide levels, the 50 + ppm Mercury which was found everywhere and so on and so on...and why should it be different with "global warming" caused by +.008(v/v) % CO2.
Before all this crap started not a single newspaper reporter was interested what a ppm was, and now when Mauna Loa puts out a number 388.59 ppm CO2 most people agreed to freak out. I won`t even go into how ridiculous the artificial precision of .59 behind the 388 ppm is although I really should!!!
More important is, that Chemists have analyzed CO2 in the Atmosphere long before "climatologists" ever even heard of an Infrared Spectrophotometer or a Gas Chromatograph. CO2 in air was .027 to .036 % (v/v) in air listed by the Merck Index 1967.
That`s when science was still honest and politics and other assorted liars + NEANDERTHALS did not interfere or usurp science.
A gas-chromatograph in 1967 was just as sensitive as a gas-chromatograph is today and that is the instrument which was used to analyze for CO2 then and still is today.
What is different are the people that think they know how to operate these instruments and that we have digitized output, while in 1967 the detector output was recorded on a strip chart recorder. The detectors, their sensitivity and stability have not changed
ONE IOTA !!! But unfortunately they have been made more "user friendly", in fact too user friendly and are almost with no exception micro processor controlled..and that`s exactly when the problem started. Every idiot (thought) he or she could operate one of these after that nifty innovation. And have in fact been operated exclusively by idiots ever since.
They come way cheaper than a real Chemist.
Soon after pesticides were found where there are none (
I am not saying there is no pesticide pollution!!!...that is in fact a problem and is very real!), only that all over sudden "Experts" managed to find these where they were not!
So how does that happen? On any detector system you can crank up the scale expansion as you please but with an old fashioned strip chart recorder even the dumbest operator was able to see when he had exceeded the limit. What was a legitimate "sample peak" and what was just wild recorder pen twitching when the signal to noise ratio was < 2:1 was pretty obvious, even at max damping settings.
Instrument manufacturers then "improved" this not by making better detectors, but by adding the integral output option. So now instead of peaks You had plateaus and the whole thing looked more "quiet" even though the original detector output was at the same noise levels...It was real easy to see with an Oscilloscope how this "improvement" was cheated together. The noise was simple fed into the integrator and "disappeared", but was still integrated...and that`s when pesticides showed up were there were none and technicians started using these instrument way beyond legitimate detection limits.
After that came the micro processor controlled generation. That`s when due diligence and the need for operators that had the fundamental knowledge ended totally.
Since than cheep labor former welfare recipients were trained and started operating these after quick 'Lab technician" training courses, Government funded of course and started injecting samples into these instruments under the supervision of may be even a Phd in "Environmental Science" (what the f@@,< is that anyway) , but who had for the most no clue how a "GC" works and what it`s limitations are.
But finally the "science" started working. Before that these "Scientists" had to submit their samples to Chemists, who had these Instruments all along..and the results "were never right"...they whined,
now they had their own + their technicians...astounding new discoveries were made and a whole shitload of total f@@, heads wrote a whole shitload of dissertations and got ordained with all kind of titles and awards
If You were to inspect such a facility and would not know what to look for You will never spot the fraud:
Digitized and data logged output "digests" and "averages" all these pesty "Noise Errors" out of sight from the human eye.
Samples are injected sometimes for a whole months without any re-calibration whatsoever...I know, because I did watch "climatologists" at the international Research Station, not at Mauna Loa, but at the Polar cap.
They were all from the BEST Universities.
But they all record the same nonsense like 388.59 ppm for example.
No real Chemist would record more decimal places than actual detector accuracy allows You to see..!!! That is one of the hallmarks of what is no more than a trained chimp!
a couple of hundred results that ranged from "so what" to "oh my God" are added and averaged and some idiot actually recorded the .59 while the original data set consisted only of integers.
The F@@, head"scientist" leaves it there, because that will really impress a lot of people with how accurate and
SCIENTIFIC his instrumentation is...
But thencomes the other crap...way way way worse:
388.59 ppm what???? weight to weight, Volume to Volume?...no
again they want to dazzle You with how "scientific" they are!...They began using Molar Ratio ....Chemists call people like that "Talking heads"...it`s a spokesperson who reads the script and has no idea what he is talking about, and the script is written for maximum impact spiked with as many impressive words as you can possibly pack into one sentence.
(the 15 post rule says)
I cant` link You so I just paste a simple right clicked mouse sweep over from the noaa.gov web site:
"Data are reported as a dry air mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of all molecules in air, including CO2 itself, after water vapor has been removed. The mole fraction is expressed as parts per million (ppm). Example: 0.000400 is expressed as 400 ppm."
F@@< has nobody noticed how ridiculous that is? and how much spin there is in the results with this method?
There is really nothing wrong with the Science, especially not with the science how to bloat up a number as much as possible!
First off nobody would consider molar ratio, because the only time you need that is for ex. if You want to calculate melting or boiling point depressions of mixtures, or do latent heat calculations,
but NEVER when You report a trace analysis finding. In percent the levels look pretty insignificant and yes in ppm 400 ppm sure looks scary to the public...but that is still scientifically correct and I can`t argue against that.
Where the real spin is and the glossing over gets out of hand are these innocent words:
Data are reported as a dry air mole fraction
That a lawyer may argue crossed the line into fraud!
I just chuckle when I read "air mole fraction"..
they have just invented a new molecule, it`s called an air molecule!..but that aside. This branch of "science" makes up it`s own rules how results are reported and have become masters in cloaking how they cheat.
Does anybody of these self declared climate saviours have any idea how many ways you can skin this cat :
The sample is drawn from the air by
volume! It is injected into the GC by
volume. And the GC was calibrated with known
Volume/volume CO2 gas samples!...because there simply is no other way you can calibrate it.
Any half intelligent person I`m sure smells the rat already.. why would you now
want to calculate the number of g-Moles of Oxygen in the air + You also need now to know the number or Nitrogen g-Moles and that of every gas that exists in our atmosphere and know EXACTLY at what pressure, and the EXACT temperature You gas sample was so that You can express the CO2 the GC gave you in ppm (Volume per Volume) at the output in ppm Molar?
Why would anyone use a method like that,....???
Well that makes it impossible for somebody else to draw a sample of the same air, do the analysis the same way but get a
vastly different result from yours and to confront You with that result.
Because now You can argue till the cows go home about the Volume to molar conversion BIG TIME!
You know how...noticed the BIGGEST part that vanished in this fancy calculation?
I`m sure You did
....all the moisture that was present and always is in air!!
"Data are reported as a dry air mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of all molecules in air, ."
Not only cloaks that how the clever cheating and inflating was done, but it gives the numbers a real boost...way more than if you just doubled the number of cars on this planet!
And hey they were right "Neanderthals" won`t notice, and that`s why Neanderthals still believe these assholes.
I`m pretty certain there will be some Neanderthal rebuttal, about the extent of this fraud, with the "molar" air minus all the moisture sucked out, won`t make much difference from Volume/Volume reporting....
Ever watched what happens to a mass of moist air when the moisture gets "sucked" out by condensation....does it shrink VIOLENTLY...?
Or are Tornadoes lately caused by CO2 as well?
O.K. now think what just happened:
How large "mini David CO2" would appear after You shrunk Goliath H2O down to
NOTHING!
And above all, let`s not forget that CO2 at these levels absorbs and contributes about as much heat absorbed from solar Infrared as a single cigarette lighter would contribute heat to a Chicago ice hockey rink in January.
And while we are at that, H2O (as humidity) in the air is also the Goliath who absorbs the solar infrared in the Atmosphere, mini CO2 is just a Gnat at that scale.
If You could peek into a lab book at the polar station, you`d crack up laughing...why should Mauna Loa be different...its the same crowd.
I should have done the same as that guy who stole their e-mails and Xeroxed how many logged results that did not fit the Agenda are crossed out, even blatantly altered EACH DAY!!! ON EVERY PAGE!!!!
