CO2 levels today the same as in 1910

“If it is unchanged according to the father of the CO2-driven global warming hypothesis- 400 ppm in 1910 and 400 ppm now – why do we have any alarm ?” – Rosco Mac

“The science of climate change is unforgiving, no matter what the deniers may say,” screams Hillary. “Sea levels are rising; ice caps are melting; storms, droughts and wildfires are wreaking havoc.” consequences.”

“This would be a great comedy script if it weren’t serious,” says reader Rosco Mac.

“Like we never had bad weather before the 1950s which is when man had emitted enough CO2 to have any effect – if indeed it has any anyway.

“Svante August Arrhenius (19 February 1859 – 2 October 1927) was a Swedish scientist, originally a physicist, but often referred to as a chemist, and one of the founders of the science of physical chemistry. He received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1903,…”

“He is acknowledged as the father of the CO2 driven global warming hypothesis and supposedly one of the greatest scientists of his time.

In 1910 he is quoted in a newspaper article thus:

“The present proportion of carbon dioxide in the air is about one part in 2,500.”

“Arrhenius thought doubling the CO2 levels would provide huge benefits by increasing the available land for agriculture.

“But the point I want you to note is this

“The present proportion of carbon dioxide in the air is about one part in 2,500.”

“If there was 1:2,500 CO2 molecules in 1910 which is 4:10,000 which is 400 ppm by volume as quoted by the greatest scientist of the day where is there any evidence that we have increased the concentration to current record levels of 400 ppm, 1:10,000 or !:2,500 ???

“If it is unchanged according to the father of the CO2 driven global warming hypothesis- 400 ppm in 1910 and 400 ppm now – why do we have any alarm ?

“I guess modern alarmists are saying Arrhenius was totally wrong about the only thing he actually had any data on – the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

“Of course his unproven hypothesis is absolutely spot on – the science is settled on this !

“This would be a great comedy script if it weren’t serious.”

20 thoughts on “CO2 levels today the same as in 1910”

  1. there were over 90,000 atmospheric samples taken by chemists and biologists from the early 1800s until the 1950s .. and there were spikes of over 500ppm CO2 in the 1820s as i recall in Europe and multiple locations .. there is solid biological evidence CO2 ppm was quite a bit higher 8000-9000 years ago .. a lot of good science was just thrown out as this concept that increased CO2 causes warming .. or that slightly warmer is a bad thing

    i find it odd the warming alarmists rely on 10,000s of ground based temperature stations to determine an some average temperature poorly and manipulated while also saying one CO2 station .. Mauna Loa .. using a tightly controlled mole fraction method .. is representative of earth’s CO2 concentrations .. where they are .. and what effects those concentrations have where they are

    1. And that one station in a known volcanically active area quite far away from highly populated or industrialized areas. How much of that measured CO2 is contributed by volcanism? How do you tell anthropogenic, volcanic or ocean-emitted CO2 apart?

      1. Good point very good review. There is no way to tell. I’m finding this very interesting that past Co2 levels were potentially as high as today. Wow. If this were ever properly proven this would be the final blow to this whole argument. But my guess is it will continue to be covered up by our dick heads at the helm of environmental power. Going back thousands or even millions of years the earth’s temperature has gone up and down like a whores panties, yet we are told to ignore all this and that the only one we must recognising as relevant is that from the last 100 years or so. Wow. What a giant cum stain on those panties. Similar to a liberals brain.

  2. Yes, the hidden truth behind the “Global Warming Hoax”.
    It is unclear where Arrhenius derived the Co2 concentration, but Arrhenius did use other scientist’s calculations to support his theory. Furthermore, Arrhenius felt that warming would be good for humans as stated below.

    “Worlds in the Making [1908]) directed at a general audience, where he suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population:”

    **
    ** Other interesting reading:

    CO2 Levels in 1800’s About the Same as Today
    By Dr. Tim Ball
    December 10, 2008

    From: http://alaskandreams.net/ekklesia/CO2%20Levels%20in%201800.htm

    “Most people don’t know that thousands of direct measures of atmospheric CO2 were made beginning in 1812. Scientists took the readings with calibrated instruments and precise measurements as the work of Ernst-Georg Beck has thoroughly documented. Guy Stewart Callendar was an earlier visitor to these records. He rejected most of the records including 69% of the 19th century records and only selected certain records that established the pre-industrial level as 280 ppm. Here is a plot of the records with those Callendar selections circled.”

    ** **

    Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2
    From: http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

    Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski:
    March 19, 2004

    “The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2). In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution.”

  3. ROFLMAO!!!
    widely emailed on. 😉
    so why??? are the buffoons in control having fits?
    because fear and guilt enable control

  4. In all fairness…Arrhenius is quoted as saying “approximately” and does not give any indication of the level of precision or basis for his quote. I’m guessing, based on the “2500” value that his value is maybe to the nearest 500 parts (somewhere between “1 in 2000” and “1 in 3000” so maybe within +/- 20% and not really intended to be a precise statement. We do have historical ice core and recent volcano data series that both track each other and do show an upward trend. Looking at longer historical records going back thousands of years….it is not very conclusive that temperature tracks CO2 levels and it appears temperature change leads CO2 change. If CO2 level is causative, based on historical Vostok ice core samples….we should have seen a MUCH larger spike in temperature already. The data shows as temperature varied by 16F while CO2 varied by 90 ppm or about 5.5 ppm / F. So if CO2 is up another 100 ppm, we’d expect another 18F increase yet none at all is shown in the ice sample data. This is easily explained if historical temperature data is driven by some other external factor or cycle the typically impacts both CO2 and temperature and now man-made CO2 emissions are simply added to the external factor. The external factor has not changed so the temperature has not changed greatly. Some may argue that it is CO2 driven but with a lag so the impact has not yet shown….but the historical data has never shown a significant lag between a sharp CO2 increase and a sharp temperature increase and actually it appears that typically temperature change precedes CO2 change . Data is per http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/figures/icecore_records.

    1. Come on – Arrhenius’ measurements would be as accurate as most today – he is credited with much of physical chemistry and won a Nobel Prize for his work in Physical Chemistry !

      For those who don’t know Physical Chemistry is all about measurement and analysis of chemical constituents.

      +- 500 as you quote is an error margin of 1:5 or 20% – I would have failed my University chemistry courses with results like that – let alone win a Nobel Prize !!

      But forgetting this obvious obfuscation based on your estimate then Arrhenius “reliably” reported between 333 and 500 ppm – both of which are considerably higher than Climate “science’s” baseline of 280 ppm for the late 19th early 20 th centuries – which is Arrhenius’ time.

      There are plenty of historical records which show actual scientists – not mathematical computer modelers – showing laboratory measured CO2 levels actually higher than today.

      The largest recorded I’ve seen is 540 ppm.

      I’ll try to hunt them down – why I don’t keep records of things like that is beyond me.

      The excuse climate “scientists” offer to explain away these inconvenient truths is they are “local” not “global” – which is quite funny as today’s measurements are basically recorded in the atmosphere on top of an active volcanic region in Hawaii – Manua Loa.

      I simply find it amazing that the CO2 being discharged continuously from Hawaii’s active volcanoes is part of the recorded figures.

      I’ve seen the continuous emission of gas from numerous vents in the volcano crater during quite times – it has to increase the readings on Muana Loa which is clearly visible from the volcano national park.

      There has been years of emissions resulting in the island increasing in size from lava flows into the sea.

      “Kilauea is considered one of the worlds most frequently active volcanoes. Mauna Loa is an active volcano and is due for an eruption” – sounds just right for recording CO2 levels applicable to the whole globe to me !

      Every now and then lava simply destroys peoples homes and farms and this is supposedly representative of CO2 levels worldwide ?

    2. But… but… but… the science is settled why can’t people just fall in line and believe the “experts”. They’ve spent billions researching this and only want trillions more to fix the problem. Start up the printing presses now as it tales time to print that sum of cash.

      Thanks much for the info and the link, Bob. Have yourself a great day.

  5. Arrhenius also supported the theory of a “luminiferous aether.” This despite the results of the Michel-Morley experiment.

    1. I know right. I also heard he slept with his socks on… what a nutcase, definitely not to be trusted.

      /sarc

  6. The final point it … we all PAY this ridiculous CO2 taxes .. (look at your electric bill, gas bill, waste disposal bill and so long).. .. The only way out of this is for the people to WAKE UP and spread the word, make believers from the non believers, even if they say you are crazy ! I personally don’t care if they call me crazy and I shuv them arguments over arguments … slowly slowly some of them started believing.

  7. Let’s see how quickly this may change with a new Presidential change in the United States. All it will take is a change in administrations and a new set of contributing expert scientists
    to indicate that CO2 levels and the related global warming has peaked and is now declining … Its all a bunch of misinformation
    for public steering politics and the lobby funded global enterprise countries that control everything … Legal corporate money laundering

  8. The battle against global warming: an absurd, costly and pointless crusade
    White Paper drawn up by the Société de Calcul Mathématique SA
    http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf

    “..The crusade has invaded every area of activity and everyone’s thinking: the battle against CO2 has become a national priority. How have we reached this point, in a country
    that claims to be rational?
    At the root lie the declarations made by the IPPC, which have been repeated over the years and taken up by the European Commission and the Member States. France, which
    likes to see itself as the ‘good boy of Europe’, adds an extra layer of virtue to every crusade.
    When others introduce reductions, we will on principle introduce bigger reductions, without ever questioning their appropriateness: a crusade is virtuous by its very nature.
    And you can never be too virtuous.
    But mathematicians do not believe in crusades; they look at facts, figures, observations and arguments.”

Comments are closed.