Reblogged from wattsup. New title Reality checks lacking in CO2-believer’s view

When ever “map” and “reality” show different views – Reality rules. BUT and that’s also important to tell directly:

* Consensus is a political term with no connection what so ever to Theories of Science.

* Appealing to fear is a fallacie when used combined with Ad Hoc/Ad Hominem. Ad Hoc/Ad Hominem with or without “computer model”-views NEVER EVER CAN BE USED AS VALID ARGUMENT

CO2 ”figures” from Mauna Loa
First of all – CO2 readings on Mauna Loa is done not for CO2-believers/”scientists” but for geological purpose to be able to have a pre-warning of next vulcano eruption! This had been the case all over the world after terrible volcano eruption of St. Helena eruption May 18, 1980

What the so called scientists of IPCC forgotten, is a simple fact that Volcanos always leak a large amont of CO2 into the air during active and after active period. The higher leaking the larger force within. Using ”data” from Mauna Loa is the same as When the fox counts the chickens

* The North Pole.
Peary and Henson reached according to their own data (!) North Pole 1909;
Nobile, Amundsen and Ellsworth considered to have flown over the North Pole 1926 (Zeppelin) and Sir Wally Herbert was leading the first scientific expedition up the North Pole in 1969 (!!!!) .

Don’t forget that ice-cores drilled down from surface in Arctic never ever show the situation on same spot, longitude and latitude, ten years ago let alone 50 or more. The ice in Arctic is never still but moves around, due to centrifugal force as well as the water cycle, as all forms of water do, including the glaciers and icesheets. All form of water including ice moves to reach the lowest possible level, to sea level. For information re. Arctic ice movements please look at with Nansen’s Fram expedition in Arctic. There you will find Fram’s movements during the time the ship was frozen in the ice up to the time it finally reached open water.
It’s not possible to drill ice cores in Arctic showing the weather situation for one and the same place, and even if this had been the case no cores could in have given correct information of the wind-, solar-and temperature erosion for any given year let alone for a serie of years.

Route of Nansen’s Arctic expedition ship Fram’s after being frozen in the Arctic Ice.

Empiri visavi computer models!
latest event proving CO2-believers assumption of less and less Arctic Ice wrong:
5,300-ton HMS Talent has a huge dent and will be out of action for weeks
Defence officials have refused to disclose exact details of the crash
It will cost an estimated £500,000 to repair, navy sources have claimedRoyal Navy nuclear submarine suffers £500,000 damage after ‘hitting floating ice’ while tracking Russian vessels, dailymail.co.uk 4 April 2015 Updated: 11:18 GMT, 5 April 2015

Had the submarine been navigating after computermodel’s assumption – or what?

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Ronald Voisin

(for the near perfect ice-core recordation enthusiasts)

This essay is a promised follow-up to a 1/25/2015 WUWT posting (here).

Some of the WUWT commenters from the initial posting questioned the validity of a 200 yearlong 100% spike in atmospheric CO₂. So I’ll begin this follow-up with a defense of that supposition.

It is quite clear that Natural CO₂ emission (and atmospheric spiking) is stimulated by any global temperature increase no matter the cause of that increase. The ~1.5^oC global temperature rise, since the Little Ice-Age, can reasonably be estimated to stimulate an increase in several of the natural CO₂ sources by as much as 2X (in particular the biologic natural sources). See Table 1 below.

---

Table 1

Here are the primary sources of natural CO₂ release in decreasing order of quantity of carbon emitted: oceanic release…

Visa originalinlägg 2 056 fler ord