Reply To: Where did my post go?

[Brian H]

Phil’s Dad wrote: I doubt you could detect a meaningful diurnal variation in these figures as it would vary by timezone – whereas Keeling’s figures come almost exclusively from the mid-pacific.

You are being a little unforgiving in your critique of Mr H. Any average will tend to be smooth by its very nature.

Heres a (2009) raw data view of things for the same period. (With a nice smooth average thrown in).

The top line is man-made CO2. The very wobbly line underneath is the total annual (i.e.already seasonaly adjusted) atmospheric CO2 reading. The dashed line is the average.

BS.
The point is that the ENTIRE AGW case rests on the assertion that CO2 is rising, which in turn depends on the “chosen” 19th C. number(s). Those were cherry-picked to be at the very bottom of the range observed.

If you bothered to read the link, it is also noted that the Mona Loa swings of up to 600 ppm/day are manually excluded from the record.
The graph looks impressive, but it’s smoke and mirrors. That’s a graph of CO2 added, and begs numerous questions.
Basically, % change, significance of change, and reliability of data sources.

And the fundamental question, which the link I gave is at pains to point out, is “SO WHAT?” The physics underlying the CO2-temp connection is not just weak, it’s missing. Read or re-read http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4 (Falsification of Physics Greenhouse Effect)

I will summarize: the physics and math of the actual energy budget of an atmosphere is so far beyond current or imaginable math, modelling and physics, that not even 1,000 years of Moore’s Law will produce a computer capable of handling it. It is impossible that the “climate scientists” are unaware of this. The simplifications and assumptions in the IPCC-funded “scenario” systems reduce them to computer game illustrations of whatever the designer or programmer wants. They are scientifically worthless, and to base policy on them is deceptive and criminal. Nevertheless, the climate cabal aggressively does so.

To be a bit more specific: even a first rough pass at the math eliminates any possible projection of CO2’s influence. And a first rough pass at the physics says that THERE IS NO SUCH THING as “radiative balance/conservation”, a fundamental assumption and requirement of Greenhouse Theories. The law of conservation of energy has no preferences about how it is transferred, converted, and moved about.

To be even simpler and clearer: the Greenhouse Hypothesis is totally untenable within the bounds of Physics. Therefor any decision based on its assumptions and conclusions is CERTAIN to be wrong.

As for CO2, here’s the deal:
Once the smoke clears from Climategate, and the full extent of the carbon-control hoax is exposed, all the subsidy-grabbing greenie projects will have to be defunded, and many of their scamboni founders and floggers jailed. Then we can begin encouraging maximum CO2 production to help Planet Earth get over its CO2 famine*. A target of returning to the geological average of 1,000-2,000 ppm should be set, which will greatly boost agriculture and food supply.

(FF doesn’t need to hitch its wagon to the diseased CO2-remediation horse. Economics is more than sufficient motive power.)

*Current low levels have previously obtained only in one, relatively brief, era in the last 600M years of Earth’s history. (Carboniferous/Permian, ~45 m.y. ).