Back then, atmospheric CO2 stood at approx. 410 ppm, if 19th-century literature omitted from Wikipedia and NASA JPL's 'brief history' is taken into consideration--what gives?
Naked Emperor put out a terrific piece about Nobel Prize winner (Physics) John Clauser and a speech he recently held in South Korea. Well worth a read and very pertinent to your topic, since Clauser spoke at length - using very straightforwards language for a scientist - of scientific misinformation and how AI/modelling is used in this:
“I don’t think there is a climate crisis…I think the key processes are exaggerated and misunderstood by a factor of about 200.”
Wow. Obviously not reported in western media, at all.
I saw his piece, and, to be blunt, I've been sitting on the above indications for some time now--and I thought, after yesterday's comparable posting, why not bring it now?
If Mr. Clauser is even vaguely correct, this is a major thing.
That is quite possible, perhaps with the addition of some Greenlandic ice cores?
Be that as it may, it does not change the methodological issues of devising one chart based on two or more sets of data, i.e., splicing.
And, yes, prior to Keeling's measurements, no sustained measurements were taken, and I'm certainly no denying that part of his legacy--it's 'the other' parts that appear less, well, plausible in terms of originality and the like.
Add to that the elephant in the room: what IF (and that's an admittedly extra-large 'if') Saussure's readings are approx. correct?
Yes, you are correct with the two different measurement methods in one graphic. Odd enough they fit perfectly from one into the other method.
And to the elephants twin in the room : What if Kielings measurements are wrong ? Especially if you see that all CO2 measurements are a monopol of Kieling jr. For example : All measurements seem to fit well to the ones on Mauna Loa, although the stations that measure the CO2 are on different heights. As we know, CO2 concentration gets lower with the height where you measure it, because of its weight. You can see it on the data of the Wisconsin tower for example, CO2 is measured in six heights from 2 to 350 meters.
Well, I didn't want to state the latter--but it's a distinct possibility.
I recall a BBC program a few years ago feat. geologist Iain Stewart (iirc) who showed footage of these Keeling-style measurements: it didn't look very different from the stuff described in that 19th-century lexicon…
Also, there's the possibility that CO2 concentration doesn't matter for temperature changes--what would that entail? Even the mere thought of this, after 30-40-plus years of increasing commitment, suggests that, if true, there's no turning back because of prior investment by, well, every single institution, to say nothing about individuals…
Oh, well, that's very true; then again, there would be a way to find out, isn't it? Saussure told about his method--the above-reproduced encyclopaedia printed it. None of the materials he used are off-limits (as in: only professionals can buy them), anyone could now walk to, say, Chambésy, venture to Geneva, incl. the lake, and hike up those two mountains.
All I'm saying is this: imagine a few thousands of dollars worth of funding, re-doing these measurements of Saussure, and compare notes. That is, actually doing science, you know, the old-fashioned way.
Maybe I'll write a grant application once again and see what happens…(although I doubt that any public research funding would be forthcoming; perhaps a critical philanthropist would be a better suited person to contact…)
I guess there are easier ways as well. You could do his experiments at home to see if you get around the 4 ppm mark. You could take samples using more modern methods and equipment in parallel with the older method to “calibrate” between methods. If they give the same results, we know we can trust those older measurements without stepping into the time machine.
Exactly. Now, I'm a historian, but I do think I can read labels and follow such instructions as cited above. My bet is, though, that any such experiments, if successful (whatever that might mean), would have a really hard time to get published where they'd be seen: lack of credentials, lack of institutional support, etc.
One would have to find some oil or gas industry (robber) baron, less to get it financed (these things quite likely don't cost that much: sodium bicarbonate = baking soda, technical grade barium hydroxide comes at US$ 100 per kilogram), the problem I'd foresee is rather the 'getting people to learn about the results' part.
Also, if we'd stick with the above experimental line-up, such a (robber) baron would, presumably, only disseminate the findings widely if they'd, indeed, corroborate Saussure's measurements.
All told, for about US$ 2,000 in material costs and a few weeks time of book-keeping, we'd soon know.
Naked Emperor put out a terrific piece about Nobel Prize winner (Physics) John Clauser and a speech he recently held in South Korea. Well worth a read and very pertinent to your topic, since Clauser spoke at length - using very straightforwards language for a scientist - of scientific misinformation and how AI/modelling is used in this:
“I don’t think there is a climate crisis…I think the key processes are exaggerated and misunderstood by a factor of about 200.”
Wow. Obviously not reported in western media, at all.
I saw his piece, and, to be blunt, I've been sitting on the above indications for some time now--and I thought, after yesterday's comparable posting, why not bring it now?
If Mr. Clauser is even vaguely correct, this is a major thing.
As far as i know everythink on the CO2 curve before 1958 comes from the drilled cores of the antarctic. Maybe the other measurements were to sporadic.
That is quite possible, perhaps with the addition of some Greenlandic ice cores?
Be that as it may, it does not change the methodological issues of devising one chart based on two or more sets of data, i.e., splicing.
And, yes, prior to Keeling's measurements, no sustained measurements were taken, and I'm certainly no denying that part of his legacy--it's 'the other' parts that appear less, well, plausible in terms of originality and the like.
Add to that the elephant in the room: what IF (and that's an admittedly extra-large 'if') Saussure's readings are approx. correct?
Yes, you are correct with the two different measurement methods in one graphic. Odd enough they fit perfectly from one into the other method.
And to the elephants twin in the room : What if Kielings measurements are wrong ? Especially if you see that all CO2 measurements are a monopol of Kieling jr. For example : All measurements seem to fit well to the ones on Mauna Loa, although the stations that measure the CO2 are on different heights. As we know, CO2 concentration gets lower with the height where you measure it, because of its weight. You can see it on the data of the Wisconsin tower for example, CO2 is measured in six heights from 2 to 350 meters.
Well, I didn't want to state the latter--but it's a distinct possibility.
I recall a BBC program a few years ago feat. geologist Iain Stewart (iirc) who showed footage of these Keeling-style measurements: it didn't look very different from the stuff described in that 19th-century lexicon…
Also, there's the possibility that CO2 concentration doesn't matter for temperature changes--what would that entail? Even the mere thought of this, after 30-40-plus years of increasing commitment, suggests that, if true, there's no turning back because of prior investment by, well, every single institution, to say nothing about individuals…
If these measurements taken by Saussure are correct, imagine the implications….
Oh, well, that's very true; then again, there would be a way to find out, isn't it? Saussure told about his method--the above-reproduced encyclopaedia printed it. None of the materials he used are off-limits (as in: only professionals can buy them), anyone could now walk to, say, Chambésy, venture to Geneva, incl. the lake, and hike up those two mountains.
All I'm saying is this: imagine a few thousands of dollars worth of funding, re-doing these measurements of Saussure, and compare notes. That is, actually doing science, you know, the old-fashioned way.
Maybe I'll write a grant application once again and see what happens…(although I doubt that any public research funding would be forthcoming; perhaps a critical philanthropist would be a better suited person to contact…)
I guess there are easier ways as well. You could do his experiments at home to see if you get around the 4 ppm mark. You could take samples using more modern methods and equipment in parallel with the older method to “calibrate” between methods. If they give the same results, we know we can trust those older measurements without stepping into the time machine.
Exactly. Now, I'm a historian, but I do think I can read labels and follow such instructions as cited above. My bet is, though, that any such experiments, if successful (whatever that might mean), would have a really hard time to get published where they'd be seen: lack of credentials, lack of institutional support, etc.
One would have to find some oil or gas industry (robber) baron, less to get it financed (these things quite likely don't cost that much: sodium bicarbonate = baking soda, technical grade barium hydroxide comes at US$ 100 per kilogram), the problem I'd foresee is rather the 'getting people to learn about the results' part.
Also, if we'd stick with the above experimental line-up, such a (robber) baron would, presumably, only disseminate the findings widely if they'd, indeed, corroborate Saussure's measurements.
All told, for about US$ 2,000 in material costs and a few weeks time of book-keeping, we'd soon know.
We live in a sea of lies. Thank you for putting light on the truth!
We do live in the midst of a sea of lies, but I firmly believe that there are a few islands of truth and objective reality left.
Thank you for reading and your kind words!