[Update from Tony Duncan : “Just got this from John Roden.
“The reporter did not quote me correctly. That happens. There were other errors in the article. I seem to get reporters that are not familiar with the nuances of science.““]
A Southern Oregon University professor believes students and the public need to hear the considerable case against global warming to help spur critical thinking.
Biologist John Roden will give a talk called “Global Climate Change: Why Are There Still Skeptics?” at 7:30 tonight, in the Meese Auditorium in the SOU Art Building, as part of the school’s Distinguished Lecture series showcasing campus professors. It’s free and open to the public.
Roden notes that concentrations of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, today is 440 parts per million in the atmosphere, but in the Jurassic period was a vastly more dense 700,000 ppm, “yet the planet wasn’t more than 20 degrees warmer.” This is because the gas has a ceiling at which it doesn’t increase heat from trapped sunlight, he says.
Wow! 78% N2 + 21% O2 + 1% Ar + 70% CO2. Apparently the atmosphere during the Jurassic had 170% total gases.
He DID say the atmosphere was vastly more dense!!! (snicker)
Steve,
you didn’t know that millions of years ago the carbon in CO2 was HIGHLY radioactive, and formed the vast majority of the atmosphere. Over time it has spontaneously fused to form the current high concentration of Nitrogen and low concentration of CO2. This also led to a rebounding radiative effect off the van allen belt that idiot scientists confuse with cosmic rays which form heat trapping clouds responsible for the greenhouse effect. So CO2 is the cause of increased global mean temps, but not in the way anyone else thought.
Hey. And I don’t even have to try to publish my results because I can just say the jealous scientists will not let anyone know the truth. Wow, this being a brilliant scientist is fun!
Sorry Tony, the real climate scientists do a better job of satirizing themselves.
Was that a teaser from a forthcoming autobiography — “Balls of Co2”
I’m not too far away… I could have gone down there to share my 2cents had I known…
Hmm, since he got the current level of CO2 wrong (390, real value vs. 440 his stated value) why should we believe his state value of 700,000 for the Jurassic? This would be an atmosphere which is 70% CO2. A silly value.
For example, this chart here:
http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide_files/image002.gif
Shows that level may have been about 2700ppm during the Jurassic.
bioastrologist…
Can you tell us how the climate worked for humans in the Jurassic? Wheat crop yields not affected? Boston Harbor stayed the same?
Research shows that no humans got vaccinated against influenza during the Jurassic. On that basis, you’re willing to say no one needs a flu shot now?
Right. Take vitamin C instead. You’ll live longer and happier.
When dinosaurs imposed the first carbon taxation scheme, it brought that figure way down.
hahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha
good one!
Good one.
I guess the tax man caused then the dinosaur’s extinction. They couldn’t afford food anymore.
All,
I wouldn’t pass judgement yet on John Roden based on a newspaper article. Newspaper reporters are not too careful about their “facts”.
By the way, for you mathematical geniuses out there, there is nothing mathematically wrong with the 70% CO2 figure. If it was true, the other atmosphere component’s percentage would have to be adjusted to arrive at 100%. Percentage does not denote mass. Perhaps one could assume that the total mass of nitrogen in the atmosphere was the same then as it is today. If you make that assumption along with a 70% CO2 concentration, you simply get a much denser atmosphere. It still adds up to 100%.
I am going to wait for the transcript of John Roden’s presentation.
An atmosphere in equilibrium with seawater can not contain very much CO2. That is why we have limestone.
Steve,
Firstly: Sorry, but I was commenting on the credibility of the newspaper citing 700,000 ppm. The University press release did not have those figures. The figure is outlandish, so even if the University press release had the figure, I would still wait to hear it from John Roden.
Secondly: Sorry, but I was commenting only on your mathematically adding the percentages, not on whether the 70% figure was reasonable. I don’t have a clue as to what the upper limit could be at equilibrium with sea water at various atmospheric densities/temperatures.
Summary statement: Prudence and decorum suggests that we should reserve our snickering, chortling or guffawing until we see the presentation that John Roden gives. Reagon said of the Soviets, “Trust but verify.” I say of newspaper reporters, “Never trust, always verify.”
Let us know. If people are going to talk to the press, it is a good idea to make sure they print what was said correctly.
Pffft, per million or per hundred, whats the difference.
One Hundred Thousand!
380ppm
38 parts per hundred thousand
3.8 parts per ten thousand
.38 parts per thousand
.038 parts per hundred
the answer to your question is ten thousand I left in a zero! 8)
With the new math being used by Climatologists there are between two and three Million Parts Per Million concentration of atmospheric gasses. As John says it just needs to be denser. Even five million parts per million would be consistent with the model outputs!
When we are talking about the future of the planet reality takes a back seat and can be ignored!
Still living, in spite of all the arithmetic error.
Just got this from John Roden.
“The reporter did not quote me correctly. That happens. There were other errors in the article. I seem to get reporters that are not familiar with the nuances of science.”
Is this a scandal on the same level as the Reiss-Hansen-Salon conspiracy?
Did he offer any other clarifying remarks?
SUYTS,
nope. From the reply I don’t see him being interested in further elaboration
That’s disheartening that he’d would just leave it at that…. now everyone is stuck with a he said/she said……
As it is now, I’m not even sure what part the reporter mis-quoted…….
“The reporter did not quote me correctly. That happens. There were other errors in the article. I seem to get reporters that are not familiar with the nuances of science.”
_____________________________________________________________
ROTFL!
This raises 2 questions :
1) What proportion of reporters “are not familiar with the nuances of science”?
2) How many such errors go uncorrected because they “just happen” to exaggerate the impacts of climate change?
It might have been 700 ppm or so. That’s about what green growers boost their greenhouse CO2 concentrations up to and why they get such great results. That begs some questions: 1) what brought levels down, 2) are we-mankind- REALLY responsible for the recent increase, and 3) just what IS the optimum CO2 level for our atmosphere? As the magazine says “Inquiring minds want to know.”