CO2 statements worse than those of temperature

[Ellipse]

This is the beginning of the automatic translation of a French article (http://www.agoravox.fr/actualites/environnement/article/les-releves-du-taux-de-c02-pire-68010) :

The NOAA of the United States admits to produce a registration of CO2, that "doesn't contain any real data overtly." (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/globalview/co2/co2_intro.html) The way of which the stations of temperature of the NOAA are installed (http://www.surfacestations.org/) to inflate the temperatures artificially has been unveiled during these last two years. The sites of measure of the CO2 have similar shortcomings. Two of the five stations" of basis" of the NOAA are downwind of volcanos in eruption. All five are submitted to sources of local or regional CO2.

Dr Andrew Manning, one of the accomplices of the Climategate, worked with the Dr David Keeling, founding of the observatory of Mauna Loa, where the atmospheric CO2 is measured.

* The objective to the departure of the measures was to see if it was possible to follow what was only to this time a suspicion: that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere could be in increase because of the combustion of fossil energies.

* For that to make, a site was necessary very far from the contamination and the pollution of the local broadcasts of the cities, therefore the station of the Mauna Loa, situated in altitude on a volcano in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, has been chosen.

* Without this curve and the untiring work of professor Keeling, there is not any doubt that our understanding and our acceptance of the warming up global anthropique would be 10-20 years less advanced than those that they are today.

The station of the Mauna Loa produced the summaries that correspond to the objective predetermined of Manning while showing the constant growth of the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 since 1959. This registration, put in light by the movie discredited of Al Gore A truth that disturbs, is known as the curve of Keeling. This curve engraved on marble on a plate of bronze fixed to the entry in the building of the observatory of keeling.


Just to 50 km of the observatory, the crater of Been able to it 'u OH' oh some Kilauea sends 3,3 millions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere every year. It is sufficient to change the local concentrations of CO2 but without the volume of SO2 that would have some effects on the global temperature.

The volcanologists measured concentrations of CO2 as elevated as 48,9% (NdT: of air) to the hot point to the summit of the Kilauea.

If the localized volcanic activity affects the measures of CO2 in the Mauna Loa, why would the" world network" have it the same shortcomings?

Maybe because all stations of measure of the CO2 amosphérique. including the other stations of reference of the NOAA to the South Pole, in Samoa American, in Trinidad Head (California) and in the Point Barrow, (Alaska). are also sujettes to local influences for the CO2, and in some cases to regional influences.

[...]

 

[Voyageur]

Been following this man for years on CBC as he speaks to many scientific things (much of it has been pretty good), yet he has also become the "National" spokesman on the CBC for all things C02 & man made climate change .


Back when much data was been evaluated concerning Antarctica by NSIDS, he came out as the master of man-made doom and gloom, as if the ice shelf had suddenly melted away. When objective returned comments were made siting the reverse at that time, his belief system stayed steadfast - as you can see, nothing has changed and he still has the airwaves into the Climate belief system in Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/quirks-blog/2010/11/time-for-climate-scientist-to-stand-firm.html

Time for climate scientists to stand firm
• November 5, 2010 4:28 PM | Comments29Recommend20
• By Quirks
By Bob McDonald, host of the CBC science radio program Quirks & Quarks.

Now that the House of Representatives in the United States has been largely overturned by Republicans, who are outspoken against the science of climate change, President Obama is backing off his proposed clean energy legislation that was intended to limit carbon emissions. That means it's even more important for climate scientists to speak up and stand behind their data.

Scientists have been caught off guard in recent years by the highly organized and very effective campaign to stall international climate talks, confuse the public, and convince politicians to put off moving forward on effective climate change policies. Tactics such as casting doubt on the scientific process and deceptive use of data to make it seem like there is a debate among climate scientists about global warming, when in fact there is none.

Traditionally, scientists have always been able to rely on their observations, experiments and data to provide convincing arguments for their points of view. Within the scientific community, if that data stands up to scrutiny by peers, it holds up. If not, further experiments or better observations provide clarification and the knowledge base grows.

That's how the system works. And it's a system that's been helping us understand how nature works for the last 2,000 years or so.

In fact, you could say that science is one of the few institutions left that seeks the truth. And in this case, the truth is a serious matter.

But when it comes to climate change, that system isn't enough, at least in the minds of some people and some politicians. Despite the fact that there is overwhelming evidence of human-induced planetary warming, assembled from decades of research by scientists in many different disciplines from around the globe, many people still don't believe it or don't want to believe it.

And even though the scientific evidence for climate change continues to pour in from many different sources, and those accused of deception in "Climategate" have been vindicated by multiple investigations, the seeds of doubt have been planted and continue to cloud the real science.

While "reasonable doubt" might work in a court of law, it doesn't work in nature. Rapid changes in the Earth's atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere and cryosphere continue at an accelerated pace.

That is the story that needs to be told and told well. Let's hope that common sense prevails.