Carbon Dioxide: Mankind's contribution to atmospheric CO2 so small it's not measurable - [MINISTRY]
punks at tfwno.gf
Sun Mar 24 18:20:57 PDT 2019
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:52:38 +0000
Peter Fairbrother <peter at tsto.co.uk> wrote:
> On 24/03/19 18:49, Punk wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 05:40:33 +0000
> > Peter Fairbrother <peter at tsto.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Over the million years before 1900 CO2 global average levels hovered
> >> around 220 ppm,
> > And how on fucking earth do you know what happened in the last million years?
> By looking at ice cores from the Antartic. As the ice freezes CO2
> freezes with it.
What's the melting point of CO2? It's −57 °C according to wikimierda. But wait,
"Carbon dioxide has no liquid state at pressures below 5.1 standard atmospheres. At 1 atmosphere the gas deposits directly to a solid at temperatures below −78.5 °C and the solid sublimes directly to a gas above −78.5 °C."
And here's the winter temperatures in the north pole
lowest temperature is -40C at best. Sooo....How does CO2 manage to freeze...?
> Then you take a core, measure the CO2 concentration and
> depth, adjust for how much got trapped, then calculate the age at that
all indirect methods and so easy to manipulate. How do you date ice?
> That is just roughly speaking; in practice it is a bit more involved
> than that.
which of course makes the results even less dependable and even easier to manipulate.
> Figures are usually based on satellite observations and measurements
> made by hundreds of sensors worldwide, gathered and calculated by
> Scripps and NOAA at Mauna Loa.
Oh yes, the satellites that have been measuring stuff for the last million years =)
> The measurement protocols are quite complicated,
that is, hard to audit, easy to manipulate.
> but very accurate. The
> measurements, methods and calculations are all public. No reputable
> scientist doubts them.
YES! A = A! No believer in antropomorphic reheating ever doubts antropomorphic reheating! Your 'reputable scientists' are so impressive =)
> > That sort of comment gives away your pseudo scientific charlatanism.
> >> and never exceeded 300 ppm. In the last few 100 years
> >> the level has gone from 280 ppm to 411 ppm.
> > "last few 100 years" again, you know that bullshit figure, how, exactly.
> There are several ways, and the figures do vary - but only very
> slightly. For instance, from 1750 to 1850, most reliable measurements
> range from 276 to 282 ppm.
What measurements? I mean, I think I can safely assume that C02 levels were not 'monitored' at all in 1750. At best, a few chemists tried to measure the air's composition a few times. And in principle I highly doubt they got it down to parts parts per million.
So feel free to link the actual data from 1750.
Here's a pointer
"Like most 18th-century experimentalists, Black's conceptualisation of chemistry was based on five 'principles' of matter: Water, Salt, Earth, Fire and Metal(....!) He added the principle of 'Air' when his experiments definitely confirmed the presence of carbon dioxide, which he called 'fixed air'. "
Well, well. Looks like in 1750 the existence of CO2 in air was just confirmed, not measured down to ppm accuracy eh?
> Most researchers use the values 280 ppm in
> 1850 and 290 ppm in 1900, as representative of the results of
> contemporaneous measurements.
> Those measurements were done by chemical analysis.
I don't need you to tell me that =)
Now, do you mind linking some hard data?
> Modern methods use
> electronic sensors etc, and are more accurate than the old methods.
> > Also notice how you quote 'accurate' numbers for the concentration value...over a bullshit, indefinite timespan.
> Sorry about that. But the figures don't change much with the timespan.
Don't worry. I do thank you for being sloppy and showing that your numbers are not to be 'trusted' =)
> >> Will increases in CO2 of this magnitude cause global warming? Well,
> >> greenhouse theory says it will. And it always has before.
> > And you know that happened because you are the guy who runs the computer simulation we live in?
> By looking at historic CO2 levels and temperatures.
Yeah right. See above.
> We know that because some chemists in the 1850-1900 period measured the
> amount of CO2 in the air.
So it's not 1750, now it's 1850. Again, I'd like to know who measured what.
> And because some other chemists measured the
> CO2 content in the air yesterday.
> The first got values from 270-280 ppm depending on when the measurements
> were made.
> The second got values of 411 ppm.
> Not hard to understand, not tricky stuff, not people trying to mislead
>- just what was, and what is.
> > Peter, what can you tell us about the commercial/political organization of "the west"? How do you think the government, 'green' 'industry' and the 'mass media' interact?
> Not really my field. I try to stay out of politics
But Peter, as we all know, this is the cypherpunks mailing list, a list dealing with crypto ANARCHY. I think we all also know that anarchy is a political philosophy?
> unless people are
> bending scientific truth for their own benefit - which is happening here.
> I guess they are almost all out for themselves. There are a few genuine
> green industry types, but they are often misguided to the point of doing
> as much wrong as they think they are doing good.
> There are some genuine media people too, though not many.
> And at the top, they are all owned and controlled by the same people.
> Most of whom are somewhat self-serving.
Fine, at least something we can agree on. So clearly all those people have vested economic and political interests in 'climate change' being what they say it is, no?
> As an aside, I am a little confused - I would have thought you, Zenaan
> etc would be all for supporting the truth about global warming. After
> all it is those rich cunts who want you to believe it isn't true.
Which rich cunts? Oh, you mean the oil mafia. But as shown above the oil mafia is not the only mafia at play. So in this case, the oil mafia may tell the truth, not because of any moral principle (they have none), but because it benefits them.
> But maybe GW is now too mainstream to rebel against?
Not sure what you mean. 'climate change' which you just misspelled as 'global warming' is indeed mainstream and that's a reason to rebel against it. Like all mainstream 'truths', 'climate chage'(former scam name GW) is just an excuse for more fascism.
> What have you got?
All I said above. Starting with the fact that CO2 freezes at -80C =)
> Peter Fairbrother
More information about the cypherpunks