Atmospheric carbon dioxide has only been measured since 1958

you are seriously retarded. Just because we haven't taken direct measurements doesn't mean we can measure the CO2 levels. We take Ice that has been here since the last ice age, and can take direct measurements of hte CO2 trapped there. You need to open a book sometime

You start off with the typical ad hominem attacks. Why is that? What did I post that was wrong? I said that direct measurements started in 1958. That is true. The ice measurements and the tree ring measurements are not accurate measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Or do you think that there is the same amount of carbon dioxide all over the world? Do you think that carbon dioxide levels at the north pole is the same as at the south pole, same as at the equator in the middle of the ocean, same as over land?

Yeah i want to add that the measurements come from trapped air. So it's pretty accurate.

Ddo you think that there is the same amount of carbon dioxide all over the world? Do you think that carbon dioxide levels at the north pole is the same as at the south pole, same as at the equator in the middle of the ocean, same as over land?

No reasonable person thinks that. That's why the data is messy. That's why the problem is complex. That's why it takes actual science, not simplified sound bites, to understand the subject.

It takes a $400 laser co2 meter, available at horticultural stores or online, and an old botany book.

The old botany book will tell you that normal background co2 is around 350 parts per million.

The laser co2 meter will confirm that present day readings are close to or identical with those stated to be normal in the old botany textbook.

This will hold true unless you take a reading directly from your exhalations or inches away from the exhaust pipe of a running combustion engine.

The last reading I took read 340 ppm, 10 ppm less than stated normal background level.

The Emperor is bare-assed nekkid.

What are you, a proper scientist???

Yes. That's why I'm calling for actual science to be done. The fraud perpetrated by the people at CRU and other places does not qualify as science.

Surely you can admit that there is a large possibility of error in generating synthetic atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements by measuring something else. All sorts of things could make the results wrong.

Let's all relax, and monitor carbon dioxide levels and temperature. Also monitor plant growth rates. Let's wait until we have solid proof of manmade global warming caused by carbon dioxide before we go changing everything in the world, and taxing everything in the world. Surely that is a reasonable approach.

No, barely have a high school education. My hobby is measuring things, temps, times, you name it. (How I arrived at that hobby, I'll never know, but I did, and it's fun.) I saw Al Gore's movie regarding co2 warming, and bought myself a co2 meter to see what I could see. One more thing to measure.

What I saw surprised me. No increase in co2 levels per Gore's insistence. Checked, recalibrated according to instructions..still no apocalyptic readings, but readings within normal expectations, according to textbooks.

Any politician who's not agenda driven should be able and willing to fork out $400 and see for him/her self that co2 levels aren't rising.

It's painless and quick, and they could always donate the meter to some high school once they're done with it...good tax writeoff, if nothing else.

Have you been recording the results? If so, could you show us some of your carbon dioxide measurements please? Maybe 10 or so measurements, over the period you've been measuring?

Al Gore has measurements dating back centuries he knows you know,,,,seen on a DVD baaaaaaaa

I agree with your recommendation but not your reasoning. Yes, what is going on is still unclear. We need to continue studying, PARTICULARLY before we can figure out what if anything needs to be done.

Also, if it turns out that the most dire scenarios are correct and we've put a dangerous amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere...well, then, it is already too late. None of the current systems of carbon caps and trades and so forth are going to make a significant difference in a short time.

If we did FUBAR this, it is a little late to fix it now.

I disagree strongly, however, with relaxing. And that's exactly what will happen if we back off from saying it is a current danger and we need to take action soon. What will happen, is not only won't we take action, but the funds to continue studies will dry up!

That's what big oil, big business, wall street all want to see, after all. Don't do anything, and stop looking for answers because you might find out something we don't like.



Now, we are already digging ourselves a hole with our current usage of fossil fuels. Regardless of any global warming potential, we have limited resources, health impact, a coming economic impact as those fuels become harder and harder to extract. We desperately need new technologies, EVEN if those technologies are nothing more than a more efficient way to burn coal!

Sure, acting now creates an economic impact. Waiting twenty years, though, means that when we do have to do something drastic, we will have twenty more years of increase in number of automobiles, increase in pollution and local contamination, increase in health effects, increase in costs, decrease in range of motion of changes that can be made in how energy is generated, delivered, and used.

Making changes twenty years down the road will mean those changes will be harder and more drastic and will hurt more people when they happen.

And that does not strike me as smart.

I haven't been recording the results, because they're too boring to record, frankly. Outside co2 measurements stay strictly around 350 ppm, from what I've seen. Slight dips up and slight dips down, but never amazing movements, always within 10-15ppm. It's boring, like watching a clock hand that moves between the hour and three minutes after the hour and nowhere else. There just isn't much change. Take it into a 12'x 15' room with two people in it and within 10 or 15 minutes it goes up 10ppm...that's how boring it is, even to me.

I only measure things as a hobby, like laser thermal measurements of the outside of my house, various place, various weathers. And I can tell you my cat's 11 inches tall from floor to top of shoulder.

Sorry I can't be more helpful, but I stand by the veracity of what I've said. Anyone can prove it to themselves. In open air, the measurements obtained will be around 350ppm co2.

That's really cool. And it sounds right, too...any actual increase is below the noise of the method you are using. Why multiple samples and statistical averaging is necessary, as well as getting out of local concentrations (one way or another).

Actually, I'd be real intrigued if you could set the thing up in a room during a dinner or a party or something and watch how much the contents of that room change with all the people in it.

I'd also love to see the graphing of what I know are considerable swings over a complete cycle of night and day.

Have you considered wiring the thing up to a computer so you can record data, or even stream the data over the internet as a real-time sample? I think lots of people would be intrigued by a project like that.

The problem is they(tptb) with there tools at ther disposal have a means to trap it under there layer of bs that is layed down up above then tell ya look what is happening and try to stiff ya real good in the pocket book!

Yeah that bs is getting pretty thick! But that's amazing that they only started measuring carbon dioxide in 1958.

We need to have proper science to base our actions on. Unfortunately Phil Jones and his team at CRU have severely damaged confidence in human-caused global warming science by their actions.

If all this denial of the problem created by those people continues, then yes, funding will dry up for their research. People simply won't believe it any more. It will be very hard for them to get tax money to fund their research. The CRU will have to rely even more heavily on their Big Oil sponsorship to carry out their research.

And of course, people are less likely to believe research funded by Big Oil, since environmental activists have been saying for years that research funded by Big Oil can't be trusted.

Given that Big Oil is a major sponsor of the Climate Research Unit at the UEA, should we be surprised that this research is flawed? Isn't this exactly what the environmental activists ahve been warning about for years: research funded by Big Oil can't be trusted.

It is ironic that the human-caused global warming science has been funded by Big Oil, and is now considered to be suspect or fraudulent by many people. Maybe the activists were right all along!!

Hi please have a look at this.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Scroll down to where it says R744 CO2, if this gas is so damaging, why does it only have a GWP (Global Warming Potential), of 1?

Difficult question to answer eh? Don't hold your breath while you wait for an answer!

Every one of us could have our own CO2 measuring devices, our own Radition measurement devices, our own Frequency Analyzers, our own Magnetic field strength detectors, our own Electrstatic Field detectos, our own CO detectors, our own Radon detectors, Sulfur Dioxide, Hydogren Sulfide, etc., etc., etc. But we don't, nor are we counciled to, nor is the idea every suggested by any ones a "celeberty".

Why not? Because if we all had all of these, like we do temperature and humidity gauges, then TPTB could not bullshit us any where as much as they can so successfully do.

Let's spend all our moneys on Wii and Air Guitar ... instead of first spending it on something that actually might clue us into what is going on in the environment around us.

The Weather reporting is so 18th Centure. Wind, temp, and humidity is just about it. When are we going to bring The Weather Reporting around to the full weather... ?

It's a nice thought, and as a Maker I'm all for it. I refuse to let anything (except, perhaps, high-energy physics) be the sole domain of some government-funded group. We should all be able to measure something about the world ourselves.

That said, getting accurate measurements is WORK. You need to understand enough of the science to be able to predict and correct for all the factors that make hanging a thermometer in the window a near-useless gauge of long-term temperature trends.

And take a look around you. Here, on this board, are a great many people whose skill in understanding the HOWS and WHYS of taking scientific observations are such that they scream doom every 29.5 days; screaming that the Moon has vanished! (They also post twice a year that the Sun has moved!)

And I disagree that we need more science to get out from under coal. Coal has served its role. It is dirty and dangerous enough, without worrying about climate change. I can see no possible reason not to research ways of using coal more efficiently.

a c02 meter eh?

now THERE'S an idea we can play with on here!



where can i get one?

The ice caps are not millions of years old, as they claim.

How old are they?

[link to www.vaisala.com]

[link to www.google.com]

How much is 10000ppm? This meter only goes up that high. Will that be enough? [link to www.vaisala.com]

How poisonous is carbon dioxide?

Toxicity and its effects increase with the concentration of CO2, here given in volume percent of CO2 in the air:

* At 1%, as can occur in a crowded auditorium with poor ventilation, can cause drowsiness with prolonged exposure.[2]
* At 2% it is mildly narcotic and causes increased blood pressure and pulse rate, and causes reduced hearing.[41]
* At about 5% it causes stimulation of the respiratory centre, dizziness, confusion and difficulty in breathing accompanied by headache and shortness of breath.[41]
* At about 8% it causes headache, sweating, dim vision, tremor and loss of consciousness after exposure for between five and ten minutes.

Carbon dioxide content in fresh air varies between 0.036% (360 ppm) and 0.039% (390 ppm), depending on the location

[link to en.wikipedia.org]


Fresh air has about 0.04% carbon dioxide. To get up to 1%, there would need to be 25 times as much carbon dioxide as presently.

5% carbon dioxide is 125 times higer than current carbon dioxide levels.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is not poisonous. The levels would have to get 25 times higher before it starts having a poisonous effect on people.

Yeah how old are they?

.......