But by God you will never be like Wilson. You are a gutless pig because you came here to lie anonymously.”

Ain’t deniers a lovely bunch.

The page is about the accusations of Jaworowski against the CO2 levels measured in ice cores.

Many of his claims are completely outdated, some are physically impossible and some, in my opnion, smell like deliberate untruths…

See: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html

comments on Ernst Beck’s historical data…

I just added a page on the historical CO2 data by Ernst Beck. Some parts still to be added (a comparison with other CO2 proxy methods), but the most important problem with his data is covered: the places where was measured: completely unsuitable for background CO2 measurements…

must be read:

“So there was NO net addition of natural CO2 to the atmosphere, at least in the past 50 years.”

I have had a lot of discussions with skeptics about these points. Here is my point of view:

- there is little doubt that humans are responsible for the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. I have made a comprehensive web page explaining that in detail. All observational evidence point to that. Any alternative theory does conflict with one or more observations.
See: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html

What I have seen, again and again, is that it seems very difficult to understand the difference between a turnover (like the seasonal exchanges of CO2 between the reservoirs) and a one-way addition.

You can compare that to a sea level gauge: there are enormous differences in sea level over a halve day, bi-weekly, etc… due to the tides, meters away. There is a very tiny expansion signal of rising sea level (whatever the cause) of less than a fraction of a mm per day, a few mm per year,…

Despite the enormous differences in tidal height, we are able to detect these small changes, be it that we need some 25 years of measurements to know them with reasonable accuracy.

For CO2 measurements it is the same story: whatever the amounts residing in the carbon deposits (sea/land carbonates and organic carbon), no matter how much is circulating through the atmosphere during the seasons, that doesn’t add or substract one molecule, gram, ton or ppmv to the total amount in the atmosphere, as long as the amounts entering the atmosphere are as high as what is leaving the atmosphere. If what circulates is 1 GtC/yr, or 150 GtC/yr or 1,000 GtC/yr, that doesn’t matter at all.

That is the difference with the emissions: humans add CO2 one-way. And for the full past century (at least for the past 50 years with more accuracy), the natural circulation has absorbed more CO2 than it added, simply because less CO2 is left in the atmosphere than humans have added. So there was NO net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere, at least in the past 50 years.

For several skeptics, that we are responsible for the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is a bridge too far, and it is fightet with fury. Sorry, but if you don’t have good, rigorous scientific arguments for the opposite, then it makes that you are not believed for points that are far more defendable, and far more important.

Further, if you are a real skeptic, please look at what skeptics say with the same glasses as to what warmers say. You may like the data of Beck, but besides the measurement errors, as already nicely described by PeterD (btw, I like to receive the Bray paper), most of the measurements done in the peak period around 1942 were on land, near ground level, which is known to give much too high average results, due to local sources. See e.g. the Cabauw tower measurements taken at 20 m and 200 m:
http://www.chiotto.org/cabauw.html
Even 200 m is not high enough to be over the local disturbances, one need 1,000 m and higher over land…

Thus Beck’s data are simply worthless for global CO2 data of that time.

Next Jaworowski:
Take his comments with a lot of salt: completely outdated data, false assumptions, which are taken into account long ago, and physically impossible remarks.

Only one example: cracks in the ice core lead to erronous measurements, therefore the values are too low.

Well can anybody explain me how they can measure 180-280 ppmv CO2 in the ice core bubbles, when the outside air contains 380 ppmv, if that was true?

The conspiracy must be profound indeed.

Or they could just be “wrong, exclamation mark”, as our treasury secretary likes to say.

Gordon Robertson
(25 September, 2008 at 12:24 pm)

Gordon Robertson, you have admitted yourself that you have no training in immunology, and yet you still see fit to deny the HIV/AIDS link in the basis of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and the mistaken rantings of discredited scientists. As I informed you a number of weeks ago I worked as a diagnostic and research scientist in immunology for a decade and a half, and I can tell you with certainty that the link is established beyond doubt.

I see though that you have not yet attended to obtaining an immunological education for yourself yet, and that you yourself are relying on a thin tissue of fruitcake writings with which to make your HIV denialist case. It’s more than a bit rich to see you try to talk to James Haughton about the truth of HIV and AIDS.

Once more, your promulgation of the idea that HIV does not cause AIDS, and that the virus does not even exist, is irresponsible beyond words. Your promotion of this meme potentially risks people’s health and even their lives, and you should be held accountable for putting this nonsense out into the public domain. I would recommend to Jennifer that she place disclaimers at the end of any and every such post on her blog to the effect that she does not endorse this idea, and that the science indicates beyond doubt that HIV is the underlying cause for the syndrome referred to as AIDS.

My questions still stand. Why will you not speak with immunologists about the working of the immune system, and how the virus works. Why will you not consider being injected with a virus that you don’t even believe exists, if you believe that you cannot acquire AIDS from it? Why will you not speak with the diversity of AIDS patients to be found at any HIV clinic in any major hospital, and ask them about the disease?

I am on to YOU, and I will warn any unsuspecting third party reading this thread that your understanding of HIV and of immunology is absent, and indeed grossly in error.

If your grasp of other disciplines of science is similarly informed then you really have no place to be discussing scientific matters in the first place.

Luke asked:

“That’s funny – I was wondering if Louis and GB were the same person?”
(26 September, 2008 at 11:20 pm)

No Luke, Louis and Bird are separate identities. However Bird and Ra are one and the same. The self-directed dialog can be very amusing!

The amount released and absorbed is much larger, but if you increase the amount by two percent each year, (as an example) it’s not too long till you have doubled the total amount in the atmosphere.

That’s just ignorance, it is a topic of active research by many scientists, including our own CSIRO.

http://www.csiro.au/resources/GlobalCarbonProjectFigures.html#2