Predictions

[RWatt]

Who cares about these "hundreds of..."....?
It was the crappy Mauna Loa Station that came up with the Keeling Curve, long before these other 'hundreds of other stations" even existed.

Mauna Loa agrees with other monitoring stations.

Eg here are four monitoring station records including Mauna Loa from the early 70s:

We still have the keeling curve. But we have so many other records too. They are all consistent.

So you claim the trend is just emissions of the Mauna Loa volcano? This doesn't make sense. A site at the South Pole and in Alaska show the same trend. It can't be the Mauna Loa volcano or any other local cause.

So all these stations are by happy coincidence next to completely different emitters of CO2 that produce the exact same trend over time? No thank you, that's a ludicrous idea. Quite clearly these sites are measuring the actual increase in global CO2 concentration over time. We even have satellites detecting the same ~2ppm increase year on year that these hundreds of ground, tower and aircraft measurements are also detecting.

It's collaborated beyond any semblance of reasonable doubt.

If you want education, read this:
Mauna Loa is a volcano

"It's collaborated beyond any semblance of reasonable doubt."

I`ve just shown you what kind crap equipment this "science" is using to generate these results...wanna see it again...:
And You "counter" with a silly graph of 3 other stations which happen to overlap with Mauna Loa...

I don't think you even believe your own words.

First you argued that the Mauna Loa data was wrong because it's next to a volcano.

Now you are arguing that it's wrong and other station data is wrong because it's all faked.

So what was the relevance of the volcano at one of the stations if it's all being faked anyway?

The paper you cite actually lists problems and how they were overcome. Besides if there was a conspiracy of faking the data, why are they bothering to list equipment errors in a paper for your benefit?

Here's the forest:
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Data Visualization

It's not just four stations measuring CO2. Here's another one of them, from Easter Island:

Now you claim to believe in a grand conspiracy theory wherein all these measuring sites have faked the data. I don't buy it for a minute, you seem bright enough and this particular conspiracy theory puts makes 9/11 truthers look like intellectual geniuses in comparison.

So why are you pretending to believe a conspiracy theory when you clearly have no will or want to do so? Are you perhaps just trying to deny some science for political reasons?

I think so, because you really haven't thought it through.

The conspiracy theory involves:

1) CO2 levels have actually remained at (lets say) 300ppm, but scientists have faked a rise to a modern day level approaching 400ppm. (I wonder if you've even considered exactly what you are arguing CO2 has done if the CO2 data is wrong)

2) Hundreds of measurements from monitoring stations, aircraft and tall towers have been systematically binned and substituted with fake data.

3) The conspiracy is global involving scientists from different countries around the world.

4) Somewhere in a tower sits an overlord commanding all these scientists. Presumably he is not named Charles Keeling or else he is channeling these commands from beyond the grave....

5) The AIRS satellite is also involved in the conspiracy. It did not measure 300ppm when it came online, but measured the same approach to 400ppm that the stations measure. The conspiracy deepens.

CO2 Global

6) No person in any country on Earth can set up a gas monitoring station and discover the truth because...well somehow the scientists have international reaching powers to prevent this.

7) The 30 billion tons of CO2 we emit into the atmosphere each year somehow just disappears and doesn't accumulate. There must be magic scrubbers fitted by the auto manufacturers, or perhaps the governments of the world are sucking CO2 from the atmosphere at a secret base.

No-one sane would believe such a ludicrous conspiracy theory. Give me a break in thinking that even you do.

Stop trying to deny so hard. Like obvious troll, it's obvious.

 

[skookerasbil]

LMBO.........like Ive been saying..............THE SCIENCE DOESNT MATTER s0ns!!!!

The world k00ks cant raise SHIT for the 200 billion they say they need to promote greenhouse gas ceilings under Kyoto. Nobody gives a flying fuckk.................

From todays Reuters.................http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE75407H20110605?sp=true





They're resorting to............ready for this................

"fundraising".


LAUGH..........MY..........BALLS............OFF...................









Yeah...........let me tell you.........the science is really mattering!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[RollingThunder]

THE SCIENCE DOESNT MATTER

OK, we got it....the science (the facts) doesn't matter to retards like you.....OK.....so now you can sit down, shut up and let the adults get on with dealing with reality. Suck your thumb in silence and don't bother your cartoon brain with things beyond your comprehension, you poor little 'special' child.

 

[polarbear]

I don't think you even believe your own words.

First you argued that the Mauna Loa data was wrong because it's next to a volcano.

Now you are arguing that it's wrong and other station data is wrong because it's all faked.

So what was the relevance of the volcano at one of the stations if it's all being faked anyway?

The paper you cite actually lists problems and how they were overcome. Besides if there was a conspiracy of faking the data, why are they bothering to list equipment errors in a paper for your benefit?

Here's the forest:
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Data Visualization

It's not just four stations measuring CO2. Here's another one of them, from Easter Island:


Now you claim to believe in a grand conspiracy theory

conspiracy theory puts makes 9/11 truthers look like intellectual geniuses in comparison.

So why are you pretending to believe a conspiracy theory
I think so, because you really haven't thought it through.

The conspiracy theory involves:

1) CO2 levels have actually remained at (lets say) 300ppm, but scientists have faked a rise to a modern day level approaching 400ppm. (I wonder if you've even considered exactly what you are arguing CO2 has done if the CO2 data is wrong)


3) The conspiracy is global involving scientists from different countries around the world.

4) Somewhere in a tower sits an overlord commanding all these scientists. Presumably he is not named Charles Keeling or else he is channeling these commands from beyond the grave....

5) The AIRS satellite is also involved in the conspiracy.
The conspiracy deepens.


No-one sane would believe such a ludicrous conspiracy theory. Give me a break in thinking that even you do.

Stop trying to deny so hard. Like obvious troll, it's obvious.

Well if that isn`t a typical liberal asshole response...
"The conspiracy theory" ...
show me where exactly did I claim there was a conspiracy,...You ******* asshole..
I pointed out what kind of amateur "scientists" we are dealing with here and that a bunch of idiots making idiotic statements is a "conspiracy", that`s news to me.
I pointed out that the "well collaborated...beyond a reasonable doubt..." as you called it has been "collaborated by the same crap method of analysis, the same crap equipment and the same crap "scientist" + cohorts.
So in your little mind that is a "conspiracy"...?
Let`s review again how "sophisticated" and accurate this "science" has bee lately...:

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Carbon Cycle Group

6 April 2011

Global. We added uncertainty estimates to the global CO2
18 March 2011


We recently recomputed the entire Mauna Loa CO2 record from the raw CO2 analyzer voltage data to

1. take into account small changes in assigned CO2 values of reference gases after re-calibration;
2. insure all CO2 mole fraction values are computed consistently throughout the record;
3. apply a consistent data flagging scheme to the entire record. This mainly affected the years 2003-2007, which previously used a slightly different flagging routine from the standard one.

I`ll get back to that cheat later down below

10 March 2010

Mauna Loa. The CO2 analyzer developed a problem in mid-February, in which it exhibited sudden switches back and forth between two levels, about 0.4 ppm apart.
A second change is that we went back, for the entire record, to representing the average seasonal cycle by four sine and four cosine functions instead of six each, reversing the change we made on 4 August 2008. The reason is that using four is more stable numerically,

6 May 2009

Global. The global average CO2 record based on marine boundary layer sites was corrected because of a sampling problem at Cold Bay, Alaska, that had developed over the last few months. It caused increasingly larger errors on the high side.

• 12 January 2009
  
  Mauna Loa. We corrected an error in the December 2008 MLO monthly mean value posted to the web on 10 January 2009. The December 2008 value was incorrectly computed using an earlier version of the codebase (see Change Log Notes for 4 August 2008).
  We have also changed the monthly web update from the 3rd of each month to the 10th of each month to give us a few more days to properly evaluate the measurements for the just-completed month.

• 19 November 2008
  
  Mauna Loa. We corrected an error in the data posted for the previous October on 3 November 2008. The assigned CO2 values for the reference gas mixtures in use at our Pt. Barrow Observatory, Alaska, had mistakenly been used in calculating CO2 mole fraction values for the Mauna Loa data, resulting in a value for October that was ~1.5 ppm too high. The error became apparent because of an abrupt shift in the comparison between measurements of flask air samples taken at Mauna Loa, but analyzed in Boulder, Colorado and the continuous analyzer operating at Mauna Loa. There is always a delay of several weeks between the collection and analysis of the flask air samples.

3 September 2008

Mauna Loa. On 24 July 2008 the middle reference gas cylinder was switched out, but the new reference value was not entered in the database at that time. The CO2 mole fraction in the new cylinder is higher than the old cylinder by 1.15 ppm, but the quadratic fit describing the analyzer response in volts to the CO2 mole fraction, did not "know" that the reference gas had a higher value. We saw the error two weeks later,

4 August 2008

Mauna Loa. The CO2 analyzer was down during most of July. Measurements resumed on 22 July 2008, so that there were only 10 days of data from 22 through 31 July. Every year, photosynthesis by plants removes CO2 from the atmosphere during the growing season. At Mauna Loa the rate of decrease is highest in July and August. Therefore, the direct monthly average for July 2008, based only on the last 10 days, was lower than what could be expected for a full monthly average by about 0.7 ppm. On 3 August 2008 the direct monthly mean for July was posted to the CO2 trends web page. We had written a graphing program which corrected the directly calculated monthly mean back to the middle of the month, taking the multi-year average rate of CO2 drawdown during July into account. The program also makes the same corrections for all other months in our CO2 record when there are missing days. Note that these corrections are retroactive. However, they were not posted to the web on 3 August 2008.

Well I tell You, if you **** up in any field other than "climatology" like these "scientists" do as a matter of routine your accreditation would have been out the window the first time around...

Also in any of the REAL, EXACT & so called "HARD" Sciences you have to show your raw data...you don`t get to **** around, with "corrected",..."data flagging" schemes or "changing code bases"....+ "averaging to " smooth out your crap science readings to fool the public with "how accurate" your crap science is.


So where am I saying, or was saying this is a conspiracy..

I am saying this is garbage-quack-simpleton wannabee "science" done by amateurs, using amateur equipment, and amateur methods...and only idiots like you fall for it.
You, +"OldRocks" etc etc spend all day every day looking around the internet to find yet another dooms day news headline...
and unless we all pay attention to people like you who are driven by an inferiority complex and heed your fuckhead prophecies we are going to drown in arctic melt water


Also no-where have I "denied" that CO2 is not going up...!!!
It`s assholes like you who deny that CO2 was way higher than today earlier and assholes like you are also in denial that temperatures even in the high arctic have been higher than this as late as 1860...
It`s assholes like you who claim that any REAL SCIENTIST who disputes these idiotic climaqackology assertions is part of some "world wide oil lobby conspiracy"..

First off, as with their silly temperature graphs "climatologists" also don`t want to show the raw instrument output data...
Only the Hansenized "corrected,averaged...bla blah blah"...bullshit graphs.
40% of all CO2 comes from volcanic activity...
and that can vary from 145 million to 255 million tons...so in other words CO2 from volcanic activity can swing wildly up or down by ~ 27% a total change of >50% + then some, and your crap science wants to show a "yearly trend " of ~ 1.5 ppm, or ~ + 0.4 %...and all other real scientists are supposed to trust these quacks with their "calculations"..."correcting for local background CO2 concentrations"...
****, vegetation alone knocks out 4 times as much CO2 with seasonal variations as this idiotic trend they are using in yet another outlandish assertion, that there is a simple milkmaid relationship between CO2 and Temperature
We are supposed to accept their crap readings, done by quacks who rotinely **** up , mixing up samples, using the wrong calibration standards, and who are using a toy designed for non scientific Hospital staff, with no qualifications in Chemical analysis to analyze for CO2..to boot.!!!!

A real Scientist would use a REAL INFRARED SPECTROPHOTOMETER, and so far when any of us double checked this quack-science we are not shy to show our raw instrument output, without concealing it behind "corrected/average graphs"...and without exception we all found entirely different results as what this quackology craps all over the media..


Also we don`t sensationalize data in graphs blowing up one scale and shrinking another as all these assholes do as am matter of routine...
Like that graph you keep flaunting around here...:

Where the Author of this garbage had to start at 320 ppm, just so that his exaggeration fits on the screen or on paper...


No real scientist would ever get away exaggerating a trend by artificially blowing up the Y-scale...
This is the proper way to do it, but then again there is next to **** all left for this alarmist crap these assholes love to publish...:

And even here the trend line is not valid at all.
You can`t just draw a "trend" from 1980 to present using simpleton Kindergarten math averages.
There are 4 distinct periods, that any professional software such as is used in serious automation/control instrumentation would have spotted with no trouble at all...:
period 1980-86... flat and slightly declining

then 86 to 88 a rapid sporatic increase, (very likely due to volcanic activity)

then a sharp and dramatic decline from 1988 to 1992 to levels lower than when the graph starts at 1980


followed by a "2 hop" step increase to 1998 followed by a marked DECREASE to 2008...

Unfortunately and as usual, these "scientists" do`nt want to show their raw source data, but only want to show the trend itself..
Regardless it`s not hard to reconstruct it by simply integrating the delta values.
And then You still get the same periods which totally contradict their over-bloated exaggerations, which no REAL Scientist schooled in any of the EXACT SCIENCES would take serious, least of all accept as being authored by any accredited scientist..:

And last not least the "molar moisture and standard pressure, standard temperature corrected ppm CO2".
As if all the other exaggerations were not enough, these grandstanding quacks up their findings by shrinking the volume of gas in which the CO2 is found by subtracting the entire volume of water vapor, and shrink the sample volume by using standard pressure...in short they shrink every number which is below the line dividing and diminishing the sensational results they wish to fanfare to the public at large.


No, it`s not a conspiracy you asshole..it`s a sucker con...aimed at simple minded idiots with next to no education...JUST LIKE YOU

What makes you even think an un-educated ignorant donkey like you is in the same league as I am...?
I have done 10`s of 1000`s of analysis and interpretations not just for the military, but also for the U.S. (YOUR..!!!) Government + the judiciary +in Research and development of trace analysis, spectral analysis etc etc etc...as well in forensic analysis mostly for the prosecution, but on occasion I was also called by defense attorneys ...and on my say so a whole lot of people either had to go to jail or walked out of court, as a free man

 

[polarbear]

LMBO.........like Ive been saying..............THE SCIENCE DOESNT MATTER s0ns!!!!

The world k00ks cant raise SHIT for the 200 billion they say they need to promote greenhouse gas ceilings under Kyoto. Nobody gives a flying fuckk.................

From todays Reuters.................INTERVIEW-W.Bank to suggest CO2 levy on jet, shipping fuel | Energy & Oil | Reuters





They're resorting to............ready for this................

"fundraising".


LAUGH..........MY..........BALLS............OFF...................









Yeah...........let me tell you.........the science is really mattering!!!!!!!!!!!

It`s "climatology" that does not matter,...that crap isn`t science any more than "numerology" or "astrology"

And the latter 2 even fare better than "climatology" with their silly "correlations".

It`s REAL and EXACT Science that matters, and the more we investigate this retard "...ology" whose practitioners fancy calling themselves "scientists" the more examples like this come to light..:

 

[polarbear]

The world k00ks cant raise SHIT for the 200 billion they say they need to promote greenhouse gas ceilings under Kyoto. Nobody gives a flying fuckk.................

From todays Reuters.................INTERVIEW-W.Bank to suggest CO2 levy on jet, shipping fuel | Energy & Oil | Reuters





They're resorting to............ready for this................

"fundraising".


LAUGH..........MY..........BALLS............OFF...................

"LAUGH..........MY..........BALLS............OFF..................."

I told You, whenever I want a good laugh I come here and read what these "...ology experts" are writing here.
Consider that between Rockhead, that internet thunder-noise making fart, who quoted a shitload of anarchist.org web sites... and that other idiot who doesn`t know "Wattswhat", ....they all believed that the Dobson Numbers below 200 are a real hole in the Ozone layer,...that water at a pH of > 8 is an acid, neither knew the difference between statistical significance and probability, absorbance and % absorption, the difference between non-linear and linear relationships and so on and on...and yet they come here 24/7 and babble buzzwords they just looked up at wikipedia and pretend to know something about science... they all suffer from the same delusion, that they are some sort of moron-authority which gets to decide who is a scientist and who is not...in their nutty little world

 

[polarbear]

LAUGH..........MY..........BALLS............OFF...................

Just as in sports in science there are amateurs and pro`s
Amateurs look up Wikipedia buzzwords and boast their "climatology" here 24/7 all year long pretending to be pro`s.
And the "climatologists" pretend to be scientists like the "special athletes" who get to pretend with the aid of liberal tax $$ to be athletes..:

Joe shows us his medals and explains the advancement process in Special Olympics

As long as they stay out of the way of real pro`s there is no trouble...except that I go looking for them, because this kind of "climat..ology" retard road kill is a lot of fun, although at times not very sporting..:

 

[RollingThunder]

...................................................

Wow, four meaningless "blizzards of bullshit" in a row from ol' PeanutBrain. Could this be a new record for the resident retard?

 

[skookerasbil]

Who NOT winning?

 

[Old Rocks]

The people whose homes are flooded from Montana to Louisiana. The people that have lost their homes to wildfires in Northern Canada. The people that have lost their homes to wild fires in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico.

Then there is the matter of 1/2 to mile wide tornadoes cutting swaths through cities and towns over several states. The people in those towns are not winning.

Kooky, you are definately short bus material.

 

[daveman]

The people whose homes are flooded from Montana to Louisiana. The people that have lost their homes to wildfires in Northern Canada. The people that have lost their homes to wild fires in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico.

Then there is the matter of 1/2 to mile wide tornadoes cutting swaths through cities and towns over several states. The people in those towns are not winning.

Kooky, you are definately short bus material.

"Oh, if ONLY they'd voted Democrat, none of this would have happened!"

Right, OR?

 

[ScienceRocks]

The people whose homes are flooded from Montana to Louisiana. The people that have lost their homes to wildfires in Northern Canada. The people that have lost their homes to wild fires in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico.

Then there is the matter of 1/2 to mile wide tornadoes cutting swaths through cities and towns over several states. The people in those towns are not winning.

Kooky, you are definately short bus material.

"Oh, if ONLY they'd voted Democrat, none of this would have happened!"

Right, OR?

We just seen two outbreaks that with numbers of tornadoes produced had more then the super outbreak of 1974. April 27th had 188 and May 22nd had 150 or so. Super outbreak had 144. It was consider the busiest ******* single day in ******* recorded history. Not anymore it is now third. 350 dead in the April 25-28th most since 1936. Then again in late May with the second outbreak having the 8th deadiest tornadoe, yes the 8th in modern times with radar and warnings. None of the others of the top 10 occurred after 1950.

Look at the floods in the midwest. I think some of this is pretty ******* historic. Wouldn't you agree? Why is it occurring, I don't know.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Pointing to events and going "See That? Global Warming!" is not even remotely close to science

It's a small step above necrophilia.

 

[daveman]

The people whose homes are flooded from Montana to Louisiana. The people that have lost their homes to wildfires in Northern Canada. The people that have lost their homes to wild fires in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico.

Then there is the matter of 1/2 to mile wide tornadoes cutting swaths through cities and towns over several states. The people in those towns are not winning.

Kooky, you are definately short bus material.

"Oh, if ONLY they'd voted Democrat, none of this would have happened!"

Right, OR?

We just seen two outbreaks that with numbers of tornadoes produced had more then the super outbreak of 1974. April 27th had 188 and May 22nd had 150 or so. Super outbreak had 144. It was consider the busiest ******* single day in ******* recorded history. Not anymore it is now third. 350 dead in the April 25-28th most since 1936. Then again in late May with the second outbreak having the 8th deadiest tornadoe, yes the 8th in modern times with radar and warnings. None of the others of the top 10 occurred after 1950.

Look at the floods in the midwest. I think some of this is pretty ******* historic. Wouldn't you agree? Why is it occurring, I don't know.

Old Rocks and Wry Catcher think it's because the disaster victims listened to the right wing.

 

[skookerasbil]

The people whose homes are flooded from Montana to Louisiana. The people that have lost their homes to wildfires in Northern Canada. The people that have lost their homes to wild fires in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico.

Then there is the matter of 1/2 to mile wide tornadoes cutting swaths through cities and towns over several states. The people in those towns are not winning.

Kooky, you are definately short bus material.

Clearly..........the world has never seen 1/2 mile wide tornado's before, or flooding for that matter. Wildfires? Also a new phenomenon in 2011. Actually........weather only started back in 1998 come to think of it. Go check any lefty blog if you doubt me!!!

 

[RWatt]

"The conspiracy theory" ...
show me where exactly did I claim there was a conspiracy,...You ******* asshole..

You didn't directly claim one, but what you did claim requires one.

All these stations and the satellites can not be reporting the same numbers unless it's faked. There are enough independent measurements showing the same consistent rise in CO2 that the result cannot be accidental or in error.

An instrument error or local outgassing from a volcano might affect one record for example, but it isn't going to affect the other records using a different instruments and in different locations. The chance of all the stations have different errors that all go in the exact same direction is implausible.

So if all these stations, aircraft measurements, tower measurements and satellite measurements are wrong, they have to be wrong because they are being faked.

Therein is why I say you are claiming a conspiracy.

I pointed out what kind of amateur "scientists" we are dealing with here and that a bunch of idiots making idiotic statements is a "conspiracy", that`s news to me.

You pointed out competent scientists doing science. These scientists are probably the most knowledgable and clever on this subject in the world. It's their lifes work in many cases.

You cite the problems with equipment as written down by the scientists in question, not uncovered by yourself. The fact they can detect these problems and figure out solutions is not only normal for science, but also demonstrates their competence. All equipment has problems. You cite "instrument noise" for example as evidence that the CO2 data is being incompetently gathered. But all instruments have noise and it's something scientists in all fields have to deal with. Nothing you mention is exclusive to this particular area of science.

I pointed out that the "well collaborated...beyond a reasonable doubt..." as you called it has been "collaborated by the same crap method of analysis, the same crap equipment and the same crap "scientist" + cohorts.
So in your little mind that is a "conspiracy"...?

It requires a conspiracy for the reason I've already outlined.

If CO2 was not increasing 2ppm per year then why are all these different measurements finding that?

If CO2 was not approaching 390ppm in our atmosphere then why are all these different measurements finding that?

If CO2 was still at 320ppm, well how could these instruments be measuring 390ppm? It's just not possible when science can measure ozone and other gases in much smaller quantities (eg parts per billion).

It's not all collaborated by the same equipment. Do you seriously believe in the last 50 years all atmospheric CO2 measurements have been taken using the same device and the same scientists?

And of course there's the AIRS satellite. I am pretty sure it doesn't drop a scoop into the atmosphere and then post a flask to scientists on the ground to run through the imaginary only gas analyzer the human race owns.

So yes I am pretty sure your claims amount to conspiracy, because conspiracy is the only way it could make sense. A group of scientists would have to be deliberately fixing the satellite and all the stations to show 390ppm if CO2 was in fact lower than that.

Also in any of the REAL, EXACT & so called "HARD" Sciences you have to show your raw data...you don`t get to **** around, with "corrected",..."data flagging" schemes or "changing code bases"....+ "averaging to " smooth out your crap science readings to fool the public with "how accurate" your crap science is.

The raw data is available. The whole purpose of flagging data is to keep the raw data and add flags to it highlight problems. Most of the stuff you bold you don't seem to understand. I have no idea why you highlighted "CO2 mole fraction" for example. perhaps you imagined that had something to do with Co2 molecules being "fractured" by the equipment?

Also no-where have I "denied" that CO2 is not going up...!!!

You deny the independent and consistent measurement records which show CO2 is going up which amounts to the same thing. You certainly aren't arguing that CO2 might have risen even higher than 390ppm, I've noticed that much!

First off, as with their silly temperature graphs "climatologists" also don`t want to show the raw instrument output data...
Only the Hansenized "corrected,averaged...bla blah blah"...bullshit graphs.

The raw instrument data is available. Here's worldwide raw temperature data plotted in blue:

40% of all CO2 comes from volcanic activity...
and that can vary from 145 million to 255 million tons...so in other words CO2 from volcanic activity can swing wildly up or down by ~ 27% a

Man today is emitting 3000 million tons of CO2 per year.

****, vegetation alone knocks out 4 times as much CO2 with seasonal variations as this idiotic trend they are using in yet another outlandish assertion, that there is a simple milkmaid relationship between CO2 and Temperature

And you can see the seasonal CO2 cycle due to vegetation in the Mauna Loa data, and the AIRS satellite data. Which demonstrates how accurate the measurements are.

We are supposed to accept their crap readings, done by quacks who rotinely **** up , mixing up samples, using the wrong calibration standards, and who are using a toy designed for non scientific Hospital staff, with no qualifications in Chemical analysis to analyze for CO2..to boot.!!!!

None of this is true. These scientists are experts in the field of doing this stuff and the results are exemplary (unless there is a conspiracy), as I have pointed out above

A real Scientist would use a REAL INFRARED SPECTROPHOTOMETER

That's precisely what they use! That's how the AIRS satellite measures CO2 for example.

Also we don`t sensationalize data in graphs blowing up one scale and shrinking another as all these assholes do as am matter of routine...
Like that graph you keep flaunting around here...:

Where the Author of this garbage had to start at 320 ppm, just so that his exaggeration fits on the screen or on paper...

The scale is chosen to fit across the whole graph and minimize white space. That's even what Excel does by default if you graph data, it sets the y-axis so the plot takes up as much space in the graph as possible.

No real scientist would ever get away exaggerating a trend by artificially blowing up the Y-scale...

Well here's a graph by Einstein that doesn't start at zero in the y-axis:

This is the proper way to do it, but then again there is next to **** all left for this alarmist crap these assholes love to publish...:

That's not even the same thing. That's rate of increase, not CO2 level.

There are 4 distinct periods, that any professional software such as is used in serious automation/control instrumentation would have spotted with no trouble at all...:
period 1980-86... flat and slightly declining

then 86 to 88 a rapid sporatic increase, (very likely due to volcanic activity)

But this is the same data you dismiss. If you think scientists have measured it wrong why are you accepting the fast rise in CO2 between 86 and 88?

[/B]I have done 10`s of 1000`s of analysis and interpretations not just for the military but also for the U.S. (YOUR..!!!) Government

I've never worked for the government. Hear the pay is good. Always stuck to private industry myself.

 

[polarbear]

I've never worked for the government. Hear the pay is good. Always stuck to private industry myself.

Then you should not bite the hand that feeds you, you liberal hypocrite

The more you post the more your reveal just how stupid you really are
And quit trying to stuff your idiotic liberal "conspiracy theorist" crap in our faces here and falsify what I have said.

Like "I have no idea why you highlighted "CO2 mole fraction" for example. perhaps you imagined that had something to do with Co2 molecules being "fractured" by the equipment?"

I never even imagined that anyone could be that stupid, not knowing what the difference is in molar ppm and ppm[v/v] or ppm[w/v] or ppm[w/w]

First of all "CO2 mole fraction" were not even my words...that was a sentence inside a quote and were from...:

Global. We added uncertainty estimates to the global CO2
18 March 2011


We recently recomputed the entire Mauna Loa CO2 record from the raw CO2 analyzer voltage data to

take into account small changes in assigned CO2 values of reference gases after re-calibration;
insure all CO2 mole fraction values are computed consistently throughout the record;

you knew that full well and falsified in typical liberal *** fashion who said what...

"perhaps I imagine the instrument fractures CO2 molecules"...
Reading what comes to your childish little mind when you see "CO2 mole fraction"="fractured molecules" instead of realizing what kind of cheat reporting in "molar moisture corrected ppm" as opposed to ppm (v/v) or any other absolute value shows that you lack even the most fundamental basics to understand the difference.

I`ll repeat it once again, not for you...you`ll never be able comprehend it, but for the benefit of others who are not nearly as stupid as you are.

Absolute CO2 concentration as in weight per volume drops with increasing altitude i.e. with decreasing ambient pressure.

So if you want to freak out people by saying CO2 average =380 ppm You`ld be fucked having to use an absolute value...because there is no way You`ld be able to show an "average"...no more than you could state what the "average cross section" of a pyramid is...unless you want to show the world how stupid you are.

So,...this is the very reason why this quack science reports CO2 as a molar fraction...because using this format the ratio of CO2 molecules to the number of total molecules in stays the same all the way up ...and all you have to do now to white-wash this crap data collection is average the individual crap collection.

But that would never even occur to a retard like you & your retard cousins when coming across the words "molar fraction"...instead you babble about fractured molecules..

I`ll also remind all other more intelligent folks who read here, that this climate quackology not only converts absolute CO2 concentrations to "molar ppm" trying to fool you with their over-simplified averaging, but in addition also "moisture corrects" their toy instrument readings..which further inflates the results.

CO2 Molar (fraction) ppm = G-moles CO2 divided by the sum of all other G-moles.
And "all the other G-Moles" that would be all the other gasses, like Nitrogen, Oxygen and of course Water Vapor...

So what does this con-artist-quackology do...?
They "moisture correct" the "molar ppm fraction" and then feed this crap to the unsuspecting public at large as "ppm CO2 in our atmosphere"...

Fools like You also think that when Denver and New York both report say 70% relative humidity, that there is the same amount of ABSOLUTE ppm of water vapor in the air @ Denver as in New York...

****, did you ever attend any schooling past grade 6...?

No wonder dummies like you keep falling for this "molar moisture corrected global average CO2" / "average global temperature" crap relationship, these quacks are trying to pass off as "science"

So when a "climatologist" feeds you an "average humidity" ...of a bunch of stations from coast to coast...and expressed it in RH instead of absolute humidity you`ld never even realize how you`ve been conned


Now Let`s go to your next lie...:

You quoted me as if I had said that these are CO2 levels...

That's not even the same thing. That's rate of increase, not CO2 level.

You are so fucked up that either you believe your own lies or you are simply too stupid to comprehend plain English...
I clearly commented to this graph with these words...:

Unfortunately and as usual, these "scientists" do`nt want to show their raw source data, .....
Regardless it`s not hard to reconstruct it by simply integrating the delta values.

So it`s pretty clear you haven`t even the vaguest idea about math and what the term "delta" of a function, graphed or expressed as an equation means.
It`s a "rate increase" you fool

As in delta(x)=2X for F(x)=x^2,.... the "rate increase" as someone with absolutely no background in science or math, like you would call it.

Next...:

The raw instrument data is available. Here's worldwide raw temperature data plotted in blue:

Again you haven`t even got a ******* clue what the term "raw data" means.
Alright then I`ll explain it to you...
here is RAW DATA showing the RAW infrared spectroscope analog output...:

Here is another example what raw data is,...this one from a temperature strip chart recorder...:

The point of showing raw data is to allow other scientists who have to peer-review the accuracy for your findings by being able to view the RAW DATA of your measurements.
Only an idiot like you would figure this is "raw data"...:

Because you`ve seen the word "raw" on it..

****, have you any idea how many times this has been "averaged" and smoothed out before it was published for ignorant idiots just like you...?

Only in the quackology that you subscribe to does crap like that get termed "raw data"..
Not all data logging is per strip chart, much is digitized and purely numerical output ...and the RAW DATA looks like this...:


http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv

06,27,2002,-9999
06,28,2002,-9999
06,29,2002,-9999
06,30,2002,-9999
07,01,2002,10043906
07,02,2002,10007813
07,03,2002,9984844
07,04,2002,9890781
07,05,2002,9757344
07,06,2002,9671563
07,07,2002,9580000
07,08,2002,9502188
07,09,2002,9454688
07,10,2002,9382344
07,11,2002,9262344
07,12,2002,9139844
07,13,2002,9091406

And not like this "Excel" spread sheet graph produced by amateurs.
Nothing prevents "climatologists" from graphing RAW DATA...but no way will they ever do it...to this day they have not complied showing the RAW (temperature) DATA how they produced their hockey stick graph...

Especially not after the British Parliament started hearings if fraud charges should be laid against the authors of these publications.

Next point...:

How many more times is it necessary to stick this into your retard face before it finally sinks into your liberal simpleton-mind that all these air sample flasks are sent to the "Scripps Institute" for "analysis" and they decide what they want to "flag" ...in other words cherry pick for their crap data collection....I posted that more than 3 times by now, showing you the Scripps URLs where that is stated clearly in un-ambigious terms


But in typical asshole/retard fashion you write here...:

So if all these stations, aircraft measurements, tower measurements and satellite measurements are wrong, they have to be wrong because they are being faked.
Therein is why I say you are claiming a conspiracy.

Therein is a demonstration just how stupid you really are...
not only do you have a ******* clue how "climatology" is collecting the samples and that air-crews who collect some of these samples don`t analyse these on board ...but you haven`t even got the vaguest idea how that "AIRS" Satellite you keep quoting works, what it does and what it does not...

[quoteAnd of course there's the AIRS satellite. I am pretty sure it doesn't drop a scoop into the atmosphere and then post a flask to scientists on the ground to run through the imaginary only gas analyzer the human race owns.][/quote]

Because if you had the vaguest idea you would have never even mentioned it.
It`s precisely this Satellite and the measurements obtained from that Satellite which shows better than anything else how full of bullshit the quacking..duck.quack qauck-ology is, you liberal assholes quote, using idiotic school kid debating rhetoric tactics...:

So yes I am pretty sure your claims amount to conspiracy, because conspiracy is the only way it could make sense

AIRS: About_AIRS_CO2_Data

Significant Findings from AIRS Data

'Carbon dioxide is not homogeneous in the mid-troposphere; previously it was thought to be well-mixed

'The distribution of carbon dioxide in the mid-troposphere is strongly influenced by large-scale circulations such as the mid-latitude jet streams and by synoptic weather systems, most notably in the summer hemisphere

'There are significant differences between simulated and observed CO2 abundance outside of the tropics, raising questions about the transport pathways between the lower and upper troposphere in current models

'Zonal transport in the southern hemisphere shows the complexity of its carbon cycle and needs further study

That pretty well sums it up...what I`ve been saying here over and over again.
No where did I say, that CO2 has remained constant as you ******* retard-asshole-liberal-lying bastard falsified it, quoting me...

And quit trying to impress your other retard friends here with your "Googling" till you found of a graph drawn by Albert Einstein that does not start at zero on the Y-axis...
You don`t even have a clue what Equation Einstein was graphing here,...!!!!

How would you...?
You cant` even read German..neither can any of your other retard friends here...
But I can..

And the ignoramus that you are , you "thought" ...but are not capable to think...that you could stick it in my face because "Einstein" said so..

Which again shows just how ******* stupid you amateur "science expert" grand standers really are..
Einstein did not even author this paper. The Author was an Indian mathematician Satyendra Nath Bose who sent it to Einstein who translated it into German

Einstein translated it to :
Die Quantentheorie des einatomigen idealen Gases,.....

Today known as the ..

A Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) is a state of matter of a dilute gas of weakly interacting bosons confined in an external potential and cooled to temperatures very near absolute zero (0 K or −273.15 °C[1]). Under such conditions, a large fraction of the bosons occupy the lowest quantum state of the external potential, at which point quantum effects become apparent on a macroscopic scale.

nd the picture you Googled for and mindlessly re-regurgitate here pretending you were some sort of science whiz-kid who studied Quantum Physics and Einstein in German shows that realtionship near absolute Zero.

Amongst all your conspiracy theory blabbering I also spotted this..

Microsoft and others do publish "Excel for dummies"...!
Maybe you and your quacking duck "scientists" should read it...!
Every spread sheet gives you the opportunity to choose the scale & the starting point....only dummies like you use default values, because you are too stupid to figure out a proper scaling factor....

Yes the "white space" is indeed a problem in that "global warming" con-game...
But as long as liberal default dummies believe it "white space" is simply dealt with like this...:

all you have to do is shift the "gas age" values by 83 years,falsifying the X-axis and then your crap "Windows Excel" graphs show no more embarrassing "white spaces".


So shut the **** up and get out of the way you retard, or II`ll run you over

 

[RWatt]

Here's some AIRS satellite data showing CO2 in July 2009, confirming the surface station results. One of your objections is that CO2 is not not homogeneous in the atmosphere. This objection doesn't stand, as you can see from the image "not homogeneous" means in a month the CO2 occupied a range of 10ppm. The annual average occupies and even tighter range.

The average in this case is between 380 and 390ppm, which overlaps with the surface readings. Furthermore the AIRS satellite record shows CO2 increasing by about 2ppm per year, again confirming another element of the picture already known from surface and aircraft measurements.

This is independent confirmation of facts that were already indepedently confirmed. The changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is one of the best measured quantities on our planet in recent decades.

Believe it or not I am simply trying to help you. CO2 really is rising at 2ppm and is approaching 390ppm. It isn't a conspiracy, it's actually happening.

Man is able to measure trace gases to parts per billion (eg in the case of ozone), so measuring CO2 at concentrations of ppm is well within our capability. You cite things like instrument noise as an argument that the measurements are wrong or incompetently done. But all instruments have measuring noise, everything you post is from the writings of good science performed by the most competent experts on the subject in the world.

Scientists would have to be faking the CO2 rise for it to be wrong, it's that simple.

Just take the AIRS satellites for example. If the rise towards 390ppm based on thousands of station, tall towers and aircraft measurements over the past few decades had been faked then the AIRS satellite would not be showing CO2 between 380 and 390ppm in monthly snapshots would it?

You have some misconceptions about the work of science in general. For example you have complained multiple times now about flagging of data. Yet that is common across scientific fields. It's a quality assurance procedure. Data can contain spurious errors and lots of these can be detected. For example if a temperature station reports a monthly average temperature of 99 degrees C you know that's wrong.

Flagged doesn't mean they destroy the raw data, on the contrary it means they keep the raw data and add a flag next to it indicating the suspected problem. That allows the data to be automatically analyzed later taking into account the flags.

Then there is the issue of choice of y-axis start point. Universally in all fields of science scientists start y-axes from non-zero values regularly. They do not religiously stick to y starts from zero. Y is set to maximize the space the data takes up so that variations in it are more visible to the observer.

It's no point, for example, me plotting the daily a temperature cycle in kelvin starting at 0K on the y-axis if all the data occupies a range between 290K and 295K. Printing such a graph out on A4 would mean the data occupied a thin strip about a tenth of a inch high, rendering the cycle unreadable defeating the whole point of the graph.

I bet in the works of many famous scientists such as Newton contain graphs with y-axes starting above zero. it won't just be Einstein.

You complain about the availability of raw data, but raw data is available. The climate science field is probably one of the best for making data available online in general, you can get all kinds of data - sea ice data, solar data, temperature data, etc. Raw deaily weather, including temperature, records can be obtained from meteorological agencies of many countries, or from collated databases held by agencies such as the NOAA.

You might be aware of the Berkley temperature project that sought to build it's own temperature record. It could only do so because the raw data is available.

 

[skookerasbil]

Yo Thunder....................


Drastic cuts for large-scale solar power subsidies | Environment | guardian.co.uk


Yup.......ahhhhh.............looks like that science is really mattering!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Ooooooooooooooops!!!