CO2 level in history

As we can see in the graphs, CO2 doesn’t drive temperature, nor is today’s level of CO2 very special. It’s been much higher without melting the earth previously, even in recent history it’s been as high, if not higher than today, even before we had any influence, theory fail. AGW hypothesis is proven false.

Realco2inhistoryPhan_CO2

Ist der Mensch wirklich an der klimaänderung schuld?

From Real CO2: “This website documents my latest research on the history of carbon dioxide gas analysis. My work had been published by several journals and had been presented at national and international meetings. In literature we can find more than 200 000 directly measured CO2 data since 1800 from which I have estimated the annual CO2 background averages since 1826 to 1960, the end of the measurements by chemical methods. IPCC prefers ice core reconstructions. This new data set reveals remarkable coherence with other geophysical timeseries. Please feel free to check data, methods, stations and historical literature. Comments are welcome.”

CO2back1826-1960eorevk

AGW hypothesis is false, it’s all about the money!

Fraud

More ..

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “CO2 level in history

  1. How does this prove that CO2 doesn’t influence temperature? Please show me the evidence that there is only one mechanism in existence.
    There is evidence that higher temperature in the atmosphere, resulting in a higher temperature in the oceans several centuries later will result in a release of CO2 from the oceans to the atmosphere.
    But how can anyone say that this is a proof that classical thermodynamics, predicting an increase in atmospheric temperature at increased atmospheric CO2 levels is incorrect?

    However, how much at present increased levels is a totally different question!

    Like

    • It’s been a long established fact that the heat comes first, CO2 follows, which is also evident in the graphs above.
      There are numerous mechanism in the chaotic nonlinear climate system, no real scientists say there is only one.

      Ref.: http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.no/2015/06/co2-whether-man-made-or-not-does-not.html

      What is the theory of man-made global warming?
      http://www.principia-scientific.org/what-is-the-theory-of-man-made-global-warming.html

      Derivation of the entire 33°C greenhouse effect without radiative forcing from greenhouse gases http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.no/2014/11/derivation-of-entire-33c-greenhouse.html

      New paper finds increased CO2 or methane will have ‘essentially no effect’ upon global temperature or climate http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.no/2015/07/new-paper-finds-increased-co2-or.html

      The Fakery of Global Warming Science
      http://nov79.com/book/chapter3.html#scle

      Like

      • The problem is that the references you give appears to support that that CO2 doesn’t drive temperature. This is contrary to classical thermodynamics. Very few scientists with a real background in thermodynamics and atmospheric sciences claims that. Unfortunately there is a lot of scientists around who believe that a PhD or a mere MSc entitles them to an expert opinion in any subjects, as well as people with no scientific background at all making dubious claims.

        The article above states: “As we can see in the graphs, CO2 doesn’t drive temperature”. This is wrong. What the curve does is to support the theory of temperature driving CO2, it does not remotely indicate that the opposite teory may not be true.

        I have little doubt that based on the adiabatic lapse rate, ignoring statistical uncertainties and using a one-dimensional model (which actually excludes the effect of weather, diurnal cycles and the rotation of the earth, to mention just a few of the simplifications) a ball park figure approximating the heating caused by the atmosphere can be established. Which again takes us back to my argument that the question is how much is caused by radiative properties of bipolar atmospheric gases, how much of this is again CO2, and how much of this again is caused by man-made CO2.
        However arguing at one side about the complexities of climate, and then using extremely simple models to exclude a radiative component is hard to take seriously.

        Like

  2. RT write; “The problem is that the references you give appears to support that that CO2 doesn’t drive temperature. This is contrary to classical thermodynamics. Very few scientists with a real background in thermodynamics and atmospheric sciences claims that.” I am afraid you are mistaking, big way!

    “The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.
    Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric green house effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 ◦C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.” More .. https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/falsi%EF%AC%81cation-of-the-atmospheric-co2-greenhouse-e%EF%AC%80ects-within-the-frame-of-physics/

    THE FOUR KNOWN SCIENTIFIC WAYS CARBON DIOXIDE COOLS EARTH’S CLIMATE
    http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-four-known-scientific-ways-carbon-dioxide-cools-earth-s-climate.html

    WHAT IS THE THEORY OF MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING?
    http://www.principia-scientific.org/what-is-the-theory-of-man-made-global-warming.html

    http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf

    THE FRAUD OF THE ATMOSPHERIC GREENHOUSE EFFECT PART 1: THE FAILURE OF IPCC ENERGY BUDGETS
    https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2015/06/24/the-fraud-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-part-1-the-failure-of-ipcc-energy-budgets/

    THE SOPHISTRY OF BACKRADIATION
    https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2015/05/26/the-sophistry-of-backradiation/

    A DISCUSSION ON THE ABSENCE OF A MEASURABLE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
    https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/a-discussion-on-the-absence-of-a-measurable-greenhouse-effect/

    And over 1350 other papers supporting my view, there’s no man made global warming
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    On top of that, here’s over 31000 real scientists also supporting my view
    http://petitionproject.org/

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s