CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 146,809
- 69,956
- 2,330
I see. Really difficult to put the link into the post with the quote? Oh well, here is what the author says further into the paper.I guess you ignored the link on the post directly above this one.................MAYBE!But no link to the source?thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels. Meanwhile, more than 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, carried out in America, Asia, and Europe between 1812 and 1961, with excellent chemical methods (accuracy better than 3 percent), were arbitrarily rejected. These measurements had been published in 175 technical papers. For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by top scientists, including two Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time. From among this treasure of excellent data (ranging up to
550 ppmv of measured CO2 levels), the founders of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (Callendar 1949, Callendar 1958, and From and Keeling 1986) selected only a tiny fraction of the data and doctored it, to select out the low concentrations and reject the high values—all in order to set a falsely low pre-industrial average CO2 concentration of 280 ppmv as the basis for all further climatic speculations. This manipulation has been discussed several times since the 1950s (Fonselius et al. 1956, Jaworowski et al. 1992b, and Slocum 1955), and more recently and in-depth by Beck 2007. The results of Ernst-Georg Beck’s monumental study of a large body of direct atmospheric CO2 measurements from the 19th and 20th Century, smoothed as five-year averages, are presented in Figure 5. The measurements show that the most important political message of the IPCC in 2007 is wrong: It is not true that the CO2 atmospheric level during the pre-industrial era was about 25 percent lower than it is now, and it is not true that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 have caused what is actually our beneficially warm climate today. Direct atmospheric measurements indicate that between 1812 and 1961, the concentrations of CO2 fluctuated by about 150 ppmv, up to values much higher than those of today. Except for the year 1885, these direct measurements were always higher than the ice core data, which are devoid of any variations. During the 149 years from 1812 to 1961, there were three periods when the average CO2 concentration was much higher than it was in 2004, 379 ppmv (IPCC 2007): Around the year 1820, it was about 440 ppmv; around 1855,
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/co2scandal.pdf
A similar projection, based on observations of the cyclic activity of the Sun, was announced from the Pulkovo Observatory, near St. Petersburg, Russia. The head of the Space Research Laboratory of the Observatory, Prof. Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, stated that instead of professed
global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015.
Hmmmmmmmm........................... 2014 warmest year on record, 2015 already looking like it will exceed 2014. That fellow is just full of shit.
But you didn't read the article, right?