Friday, October 5, 2007

The Real History of Carbon Dioxide Levels

Message #1 - 10/04/07 02:20 AM
This is important information I have not seen before. It seems CO2 levels varied considerably in the recent past, and are the result of the rising and falling of temperature, not the cause of temperature changes. This is in direct contradiction to the assumptions of those believing in man-caused global warming. Take note!

Prof. Beck's paper "180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS" has now been published in the journal Energy and EnvironmentClick to view image. A PDF copy of the full paper can be obtained from the author: Excerpt below. It shows that actual past measurements of atmospheric CO2 have undergone great variation in levels from time to time in the period surveyed. Levels were not "flat" before the 20th century, as is usually asserted. There is a discussion of the paper hereClick to view image. I mentioned this matter previously on March 9th. -- where there is also a link to an early version of the full paper.Click to view imageABSTRACT More than 90,000 accurate chemical analyses of CO2 in air since 1812 are summarized. The historic chemical data reveal that changes in CO2 track changes in temperature, and therefore climate in contrast to the simple, monotonically increasing CO2 trend depicted in the post-1990 literature on climate-change. Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm. Between 1857 and 1958, the Pettenkofer process was the standard analytical method for determining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and usually achieved an accuracy better than 3%. These determinations were made by several scientists of Nobel Prize level distinction. Following Callendar (1938), modern climatologists have generally ignored the historic determinations of CO2, despite the techniques being standard text book procedures in several different disciplines. Chemical methods were discredited as unreliable, choosing only a few which fit the assumption of a climate CO2 connection."(continued here)

No comments: